Sunday, June 12, 2011

As most readers already know, a couple of days ago the comment thread on Fjordman’s essay descended into a Jew-obsessed free-for-all with which we are all too familiar, and which I have come to dread.

Such threads do not change anybody’s mind. They serve no useful purpose, as far as I can tell. People vent at each other for a while, and then the thread peters out, or someone fails to control himself and jumps the perimeter fence, forcing me to close the comments.

Since a lot of the very finest people I work with in the Counterjihad are Jewish conservatives, it does not align with my strategic interests to create any more flypaper for Jew-haters.

For these reasons, I was hesitant about posting anything further on the topic, knowing what is likely to develop in the comments section as a result. But today we received an email appeal from an Israeli woman, and it made me change my mind. I’ll get to that later on in this post, but first let’s talk about Serbia.

The subject came up because one of the commenters on the earlier post mentioned Srdja Trifkovic, the Serbian-American historian. Dr. Trifkovic’s history of the Ustasha in Croatia before and during World War 2 is unparalleled. The Jews and the Serbs were corralled together and massacred in the extermination camps of Croatia, with the support (and participation) of a number of Roman Catholic priests and bishops. These are historical facts, thoroughly documented, and Dr. Trifkovic’s work on the topic is exhaustive.

For this reason, I have learned to apply what I call the “Serbia Standard” to those who argue about Israel and the Jews. Anyone who supports Israel (as I do) should also support Serbia for the same reasons. Like the Jews, the Serbs were victims of an attempted extermination during the Second World War. Like the Jews, the Serbs have been unjustly demonized. Like the Jews, the Serbs are under siege by Islam in their own land.

Since the Russians often go to bat for the Serbs, one could even make the case for a vast international conspiracy that works behind the scenes to promote Serbian interests.

Those who are gung-ho about the Jews and Israel but refuse to support the Serbs and Serbia (or who actually vilify them) are intellectually inconsistent and incoherent, so their arguments may be justifiably disregarded.

The Jews now have their own state, as do the Serbs. Both nationalities suffer at the hands of those who would damage or destroy them. Therefore the Jews deserve no more special treatment than do the Serbs, and vice versa.

The Serbia Standard serves as a useful way of weeding out disingenuous and hypocritical arguments by those who support Israel. If they fail to support the Serbs, it exposes their special pleading. I presume it could do the same for anyone who treats Serbia in a similar preferential manner.

Supporting both Serbia and Israel is a useful strategy. So is supporting Finland, Latvia, Romania, Italy, Ireland, Australia, Texas, Virginia, and many other nations that are bastions of Western traditions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dymphna and I received the following email this morning from a woman in Israel who has asked to remain anonymous:

Dear Gates of Vienna blog managers (Baron and Dymphna),

I write you from Israel, after reading the latest overheated debate on the “Jewish question”.

Actually, I have followed your blog for some time, in order to get news that is unavailable to the Israeli population (as well as most of the West).

A huge thank you for a priceless work you are doing — from all my heart.

Well, why I decided to write you this convoluted letter at all...

You see, the heated point was very justifiably raised first by certain people about the participation of those enlightened Jews/Jewish organizations in the PC wars enabling the “enrichment”. I won’t argue the fact that they play a relatively big part (based on their population percentage) in the issue, and it’s a point that should be discussed. Shutting it down won’t do any good to anyone, especially to Jews who like me have nothing whatsoever to do with this disastrous campaign.

Nonetheless, I have to admit that the discussion has turned from informative at first to downright ugly. Well, I think you took notice of that — and that’s not why I’m writing to you.

You see, what I wanted to tell is that those Jews and their organizations like George Soros’, or the infamous J-Street, are the mortal enemies of Israel as well — just as they are against the Western traditional world.

Here in Israel the situation is pretty much the same as in Europe or in USA — the radical Left rules in the media and the academy (no matter what the elected government tries to do), and they do everything they can to discredit their own state, including all the usual “enrichment” stuff and all. Anyone who seems even slightly “right” to them is immediately defined as “bigots”, “racists”, “radicals” and so on.

In short — all the usual stuff you’re so familiar with.

I just wanted to explain and stress this important detail that I believe was mostly absent from the discussion —Israel and the Western Traditional world have one common enemy. And this enemy has a lot of radical lefty Jews among them — many of them with power and money. While we, the regular Israeli citizens, don’t have any of that. And they use it against us exactly as they use it against you.

Those who continue to blame all Jews without distinction naïvely/wrongly think those Jewish magnates defend Israel, yet attack and get revenge on the West.. No, they do not. They attack Israel as well, yet they do it while covering their poisonous attacks by disguising them as compatriot help and care (Soros even doesn’t care about the cover-up).

We are desperate...

Please, I just wanted to deliver the message.

I don’t want to go public with it, yet if you want to use this letter because you have to — please, drop my name and let me stay anonymous.

I’m more than happy to deliver this lady’s message. Zenster asked for a thread to discuss this topic, and she has fortuitously helped us to create it.

And I ask all of you to consider the Serbia Standard. Whether for or against, do you apply the same standards to both Serbians and Jews?

I have no time for arguments that fail the Serbia Standard. They lack intellectual rigor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Side note: Very few people, except those who have visited Israel and know something about Israeli society, are aware that there are social problems with Jews too who originate in North Africa, and deep divisions in Israel between the Ashkenazi and African-origin Jews from Muslim countries. Takuan Seiyo wrote an article several years ago that outlines some of the issues.

Note from Dymphna

For those readers who intend to reprise the comments thread on Fjordman’s post: resist that temptation.

This post is not about the machinations of the evil Jooooos and their secret conspiracy to gain world dominance. Been there. Done that. Vent somewhere other than on this blog about that subject.

This post concerns the fact that progressive idjits are trying to destroy Israel, and they want to take the rest of the West along on their suicide mission. Are there Joooos in that group? Sure. But they are only part of it.

Instead of pondering the JQ, let’s look at the PQ — the “Progressive Question”— and maybe the fact that so many high-IQ folks can put their intelligence in neutral while they serve an evil cause. Obviously, intellect has little bearing on wisdom or long-term survival with this group.

Sooo…them’s the rules: JQ has been ruled off the turf. There won’t be a repeat of what happened the other day when the comments thread on Fjordman’s post went sideways, much to his distress.

Yes, I know, I know: policing this thread makes me a coward, afraid of free speech. However, the notion of “free speech” never entitles a person to dump whatever they choose on my parlor floor. Such arguments are best left behind in the schoolyard as people mature. At best this unbridled speech is anarchistic.

Gates of Vienna is where we make our living. The comments threads contribute to our character and reputation. It’s a friendly place as long as civility is maintained. Outside our fence, say whatever you want. But inside my front gate the rules are clearly posted.

Quote, with some additions:1. Like the Jews, the Serbs were victims of an attempted extermination during the Second World War. 2. Like the Jews, the Serbs have been unjustly demonized. 3. Like the Jews, the Serbs are under siege by Islam in their own land.end quote.

Amazing how those three conditions just fall together like magnetized hematite pieces!One day, in the not too distant future, we will all be Serbs, we will all be Israelis.And all because of the Islamic-Liberal Axis, all at the hands of those who hate, rape, mock, murder and desecrate.The discussions of the former thread were repulsive to me-- that's why I didn't contribute even one sentence to them.When you see this pattern in the experience of a community--in that of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England and even Dearborn, MI, you understand how sickeningly counterproductive, wasteful and stupid such discussions of the objectives of Jews really are.

My particular obsession is why very smart, highly educated people adopt a stupid and suicidal outlook on life and society. I’d add that only Western whites succumb to this illness, except I’ve seen it in Japan too. Japan is now a welfare state, the youth are not motivated to study and succeed the way the Chinese still are, PhD economists with 150 IQs (I know two) are Keynesian, etc. The JQ is to a large extent a subset of the above issue, except JQ-obsessed yokels don’t get concepts like “intervening variable.”

I want to relay an anecdote here. Some time ago I was in a public place with a friend who had been a Navy pilot in Vietnam. Suddenly, he nudged me and said, excitedly, look there, it’s General McPeak. That meant nothing to me, but I went back to my computer and found this

Gen. Merrill McPeak was for a long time the top of the top guns, a flying ace nonpareil. Now to fly a jet fighter, let alone engage it in combat, takes superb instincts and an ability for a split-second correct apprehension of reality (you don't get a 2nd chance). He seems to have had a standard GOP background too. So how come a man like that can become the co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign?

Years before BHO even announced his candidacy it was obvious that here was an Afrocentric, anti-colonialist Islam enabler and anti-American socialist activist who would preside over a slow-motion train wreck of America, if elected. And skin color has little to do with it: on the one hand black conservatives like Tom Sowell have attacked BHO harshly; on the other, my antipathy to him would be equal were he a blond, blue-eyed ethnocentric Albanian-American Muslim sympathizer and socialist.

What can possibly be the reason for a man with such superb qualities as McPeak must have to put his shoulder to the BHO wagon? Is there some kind of fungus that invades the brain? You can extend this question to everything else: diversity, multiculturalism, proposition nation etc. – all dead on arrival and PREDICTABLY so to anyone who knows how to think and has eyes to see.

Conservative Swede, good to see you again. Your comments are always inspiring.

It's a pity you weren't on the proposition nation thread -- you might have helped keep things on the straight and narrow.

I had to adjust your comment a bit to meet our standards:

----------------------

Conservative Swede said...

It's really a pity that such a very good article by Fjordman was not really discussed at all. Some net hooligan brings up the JQ among the first comments, and then the whole thing is lost.

Regardless of which of the sides of the JQ that is right: as adults we should be able to discuss the Proposition Nation regardless of the JQ. It should have been the role of America and France discussed in that thread. But it was barely mentioned.

GoV used to work fine. And even discussions on the JQ used to be good here. But since the autumn of 2008 the discussions here are not what they used to be. Stronger policing would be necessary to keep the discussions intelligent here (and that certainly do not only apply to whenever the Jews are brought up). I have pointed this out to the blog owners, but they are stubbornly against doing what is necessary.

Exactly because of this I left the comment fields of GoV two years ago. After a number of email exchanges I concluded that GoV's blog owners were stuck in a Kantian paradigm on moderation. And that it was as hopeless to talk them out of it as it would have been to convince Immanuel Kant himself to think otherwise. So I left. A good guest knows when it's time to leave and thank for the coffee.

For well-mannered Westerners it is of essential importance to feel that they are fair and impartial (for example when administering a duty such as moderation). But in order to really convincing himself of that feeling he will have to do things that are explicitly against his own interest. This is yet another example of the sort of inverse morality that makes the West fail.

The important thing with moderation is if it's effective. The question is: Who is rewarded? Weak policing will always reward the bad apples, by not dealing with them properly. And the people looking for intelligent discussions will eventually leave.

If a dog [defecates] on the living room carpet it takes more then waggering the finger or even shouting. You will need exercise power properly over the dog. Otherwise the [defecating] dog will win, his behaviour is rewarded, and the smell of his [excrement] will dominate the whole existence of the room. And the behaviour will be repeated over and over.

I certainly hope that this comment of mine won't inspire Baron and Dymphna to run the moderation here more strictly. Because if they would do so, without first dropping their Kantian paradigm, it would make this place look as if it was run by the TSA (I know because I have seen it happen before).

The Kantian paradigm is a very strong drug. I have no simple cure for it. Except perhaps for exorcism.

The discussions of the former thread were repulsive to me-- that's why I didn't contribute even one sentence to them.When you see this pattern in the experience of a community--... you understand how sickeningly counterproductive, wasteful and stupid such discussions...are.

Indeed. And that's why the boundaries on this one have been drawn so distinctly.-----------------------

For those who pose the notion that deleting comments must be exhausting let me allay your fears: it's gotten easier over the last six years because we know our reputation depends on what we permit... so whenever we encounter personal attack disguised as discourse, why the delete button is right to hand.

We appreciate your concern, though, and wish we had a /sarc emoticon for you.------------------------Takuan Seiyo --

See...that's the mistake we keep making: correlating IQ with wisdom. 'T'aint the case, me boy. I'm sure you're aware that country folks are fond of saying, "he's a smart 'un all right but the man don't have a lick o' common sense".

When I saw Daniel Pearl's father spouting Kumbayah foolishness in the WSJ I knew the man would never, ever, no how, no way have a 'teachable moment'. His brain was permanently in neutral.

What gives me hope is the numbers of the electorate who self-designate as "conservatives". Do ALL of them know what that means? I doubt it. However, I'll bet they know what it doesn't mean and so by a process of elimination they're announcing "I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Liberal". It's a beginning, a small ray of light.

Think of the Sweden Democrats and the uphill battle they've waged just to be considered human. Now that's inspiring! So is the PVV and the EDL. Like the helicopter, they shouldn't function, but they do...

It's a pity you weren't on the proposition nation thread -- you might have helped keep things on the straight and narrow.

You know as well as me that that wouldn't have helped a [excrement].

And that was exactly the point of my comment here!

To make it clearer what I say: In order for you to be successful with your moderation you will have to properly discriminate. When we discussed this two years ago your position (described here in my words) was that every comment should be viewed in isolation as from under a Kantian sky of stars. Maybe that worked five years ago, but it doesn't work today. To stop any [defecating] dog you'll need to use profiling and discrimination, and essentially bully the dog out of his bad behaviour (alternatively make him leave, it's up to him really).

A good bully'er won't even been seen as a bully, but as a kind and wise leader (that's how power works). And old ladies and other innocents won't be harassed as in TSA style policing. On the contrary, they will feel that it is a safer and friendlier place.

Without "unfair" discrimination and goal-orientation against problem dogs, a place aiming for such open discussions as GoV will not succeed well in the comment field. The articles and especially the news feed are still great though!

Your personality is much better then mine for doing what you do. Very few people could have done what you do. But what I can offer is theoretical insight and maybe exorcism.

And this problem is by no means unique to Fjordman threads. You are simply against properly applying discrimination and profiling when it comes to moderation. It's in your personality. But I just wanted to try and help out in pointing out exactly what is the source of the problem. Intelligent people can change their personality if the get the right input (e.g. I used to be extremely Kantian, as well as a Jesus-hippie, when I was younger).

Nevertheless, this is your garden. I'm just stating my opinion here.

Btw, I agree about your "Serbia Standard" and think it is well put. But I would add that connected to my unequivocal support of Serbia is the idea that they should live there rather than in my country. And for the ones remaining here after all, there should be no "propositional nation" mass handouts of citizenship to them. That's how it ought to be. The question is how to reverse the mess we have now put ourselves in...

Strongly agree, that it is inconsistent to support Israel but not support the Serbs. If you study what happened in Yugoslavia in the 1990s you come away knowing that when the elites malign the Serbs that probably the opposite is the truth. Strangely enough, that is usually the case.

I’ve pointed out multiple times that the Western world has forgotten the distinction between smarts and wisdom, whereas the Chinese have not, which is why they are running circles around us. I quoted in one of my pieces a Cameroonian proverb that says, “Even if a log bob on the water for 100 years, it cannot become a crocodile.” Presto, you can throw out Ivy League, Oxbridge and Ecole Normale out the window, adopt a little pearl of wisdom from ancient barefoot illiterates, and we are saved from the major plagues of the West, including of course “proposition nation.”

But that’s why I brought up the case of Merrill McPeak. Here it’s no longer a matter of intellectual software. What he did for a living requires superb instincts, an ability to perceive, assess and act on a slice of reality in a split second, unerringly. This is not just smarts v. wisdom but a honed survival instinct – and yet, something clogged that fine instrument when immersed in the utopian clouds of malarkey of the BHO “message.”

Yes, I know you're right. And if you've been following our blog at all in the last couple of years, you'll be aware that I have often cited the need for exorcism, and emphasized how you and Queen helped me with my own. I suppose my task is not yet complete.

But I would add that connected to my unequivocal support of Serbia is the idea that they should live there rather than in my country. And for the ones remaining here after all, there should be no "propositional nation" mass handouts of citizenship to them. That's how it ought to be. The question is how to reverse the mess we have now put ourselves in...

Yes, this is the core problem: how do we unmix the martini? Because this drink is deadly.

We can start by doing our best to de-stigmatize the natural urge to live amongst one's own kind. Speaking out about this goes against most people's grain, but it must be repeated over and over again.

If you and I had control of a major television network, the job would be much easier...

We're not Kantian, we're Aristotleans, searching for a golden mean in moderation, not a categorical imperative. Oh my.

Still sounds like a universalist, TSA style standard to me. Sorry.

Forget the philosophers, you'll need to hunt down the bad (smelly) dogs. But the nice thing with this is that once that you show the dogs that you are indeed a hunter, most of the job is already done.

Compare with the wolf debate. It's true, wolfs do not attack humans. Not when enough of them have guns and the forest is full of hunters, as it has been in the West for the last 200 years or so. But in the Soviet Union, Stalin took the guns from the people so there the wolfs attacked and killed humans. Doggies are very good at reading the "street".

In our county, the coyotes are multiplying to the point that the Supervisors have set up a bounty: $50.00 a coyote. Needless to say, with as many hunters as we have -- make that hunter/farmers -- the coyote population is slowly being reduced, which is good for those who raise steers and sheep and chickens.

While I wouldn't want to live with a coyote, they sure have their uses -- e.g., keeping the deer out of my yard. And when the deer population decides to hang out somewhere else, the tick population drops like a rock. Haven't seen a deer tick all summer.

So while I'm glad the County Supervisors are "doing something" about the coyotes, I'm also glad there's a limit to the amount of money they allocate to the problem.

It's complicated, though: I was hoping to have some chickens but I'll be darned if I'll be stuck raising coyote food.

@DymphnaPrecisely because I would not live there that it hurts they are running circles around us. Note however, that quite a few of the smartest Anglo-Nordic-Germanic money brains in the world have moved there. Mark Mobius, Marc Farber (now in Thailand) and Puru Saxena live in HK; Jimmy Rogers lives in Singapore and so on.

So when they take us over and free up the economy we can be vibrant like HK and yet avoid the plagues which persecute ordinary folks on the mainland?

I wonder what their wine is like?

-------------------

Con Swede--

Deer are *cute* & I'm allergic to cute. Come to think of it, the feral dog packs have been far less frequent, too -- they were often a mixture of ppl from the big city dropping their unwanted dogs out here plus the blue tick coon hounds lost by hunters...

oops...now it's too late to post my essay from a reader about the consequences of making friends with chimpanzees who get aggressive in their old age. Which is what male chimps do...but when they're young they're so *cute*...

Oops! Am I a wolf?! I feel more like Little Red Riding Hood trying to avoid the wolf....

Truly, the shock and horror that some people here have expressed about the recent 'topic-that-must not-be-named' is the EXACT same response that I receive when I try to get the PC MC crowd to discuss Islam and Muslims. To wit, 'we must not tar all Muslims with the same brush' - EXCEPT where that argument falls apart with Islam, I genuinely readily admit that there are both positive and negative groups in the 'topic-that-must not-be-named.'

I have the same opinion about the 'topic-that-must-not-be-named' as I do about the Serbs: All those who fight Islam, open immigration, and hate speech laws are the good guys. All others are questionable characters with very questionable motives.

I am absolutely shocked that Israel is ruled by the same suicidal masochism which afflicts the West. You'd figure that being surrounded by a civilization religiously sworn to your destruction would wake people up. I suspect, however, that in a way it makes a certain amount of sense. After all, most liberals in the West are no longer "tolerant", they are downright afraid. My feeling is that they react to the threat by digging the hole deeper, instead of recognizing the danger of their lazy end-of-history quasi-metaphysical assumptions. Since Israel is in even more danger, the reaction would be even worse.

@DymphnaBanish the thought of their taking us over. Economically, we still have a chance if you vote Bachman. Demographically, we don't have a chance unless someone else runs who is not in the wings now: a Bachman-Baron ticket?

Alas, demographics translates into economics, and libertarians have a blind spot on Proposition Nation. That’s why, contrary to popular opinion, I feel that the Proposition Nation debate that slid into a scramble with JQ fanatics was a positive contribution. We have to deconstruct PN before it deconstructs us completely. JQ is relevant within that context, as is a discussion of other demographic segments that it was impossible to get to over the brownshirt ruckus, but we should. And not just a discussion of such segments but what to do about them. BTW, no one, absolutely no one has borne the PN standard higher than Dubya Bush and, after him, McCain.

Israel and the Western Traditional world have one common enemy. And this enemy has a lot of radical lefty Jews among them — many of them with power and money. While we, the regular Israeli citizens, don’t have any of that. And they use it against us exactly as they use it against you.

-- I reiterate a cluster of questions I asked on that previous thread (I believe I asked it of "Chechar"):

1) When the bad Jews (the Lefties) do their bad things, are they doing them for Jewish reasons and out of Jewish motivations?

Or:

2) When the good Jews (such as this Israeli woman and the common Jews she speaks of who don't do bad Leftist things) do good things (and/or refrain from doing bad Leftist things), are they doing it for Jewish reasons and out of Jewish motivations?

a) Is the answer Yes for #1, and No for #2?

b) Or is the answer No for #1, and Yes for #2?

c) Or is the answer Yes for both #1 and #2?

d) Or is the answer No for both #1 and #2?

If anyone would be so kind as answer these questions, please include why you answered them however you did.

@HesperadoThe answer is yes and no for both. We can't get into it, alas, because such discussions are like an open jar of honey to starved flies. I really feel that the debate should be raised in Jewish circles and on a Jewish website. There are quite a few Jewish contributors to VDare.com and AmRen -- maybe they will take up the intitiative for the Jewish establishment is hopeless, even on the neocon side.

My perspective is that PC/Multiculturalism is a lot like Greek Humanism spread out throughout the ME in the aftermath of Alexander's conquest and the empires created by his generals. Christian scholars were shocked in the Renaissance when they read the Greek philosophers -- so much of it echoed exactly the Gospels. Which was no surprise -- the Jews of that period were steeped in Greek humanism and the basic assumptions ... EVEN IF THEY NEVER READ ARISTOTLE. [Emphasis mine.]

So what is the equivalent of Greek Humanism? IMHO it is a noxious combination of Puritan/Calvinist notions of the "saved and the damned," the pre-destined saved, and the rest of the Five Points of Calvinism, and the Quaker notion of universalism and universal love. From the Calvinists we get: the notion of "total depravity" without God's intervention, "Unconditional election" (God already chose who to save or damn from eternity, before time began), "Limited Atonement" (Jesus only died for the elect/predestined saved), "Irresistible Grace" (God saves who he wants to save, whether they wish it or not), and finally "Perseverance of the Saints," (those who are elect stay elect, regardless). From the Quakers we get no special favors by nation, race, or language, a universalist "all God's Children" notion.

Industrialization, mass consumer culture, and the media environment stripped these movements of the particular emphasis of well, God and Jesus, and left only the form and social assumptions, toxic without a focus on the afterlife and Spiritual redemption.

Israelis and Japanese are a good point. Israelis are already self-selected (i.e their parents, grand parents, or great-grandparents moved there explicitly to be part of a Jewish nation) and Japanese are very much in favor of Japanese-ness as opposed to a globalist, PC/Multi-culti universal blandness (call it the Starbucks experience!) Yet they too have been awash in the modern equivalent of Greek humanism with the export of Western and specifically American culture. That has this Calvinist-Quaker mutation that has proven so deadly to national identity and the natural order of political, social, and cultural identification.

I think so too. I've mentioned it before here at Gates. Personally, I think this is IT. All nations know of each other and are interdependant. Western Civ is on the brink of collapse, and people are already selling out to the great shadow of the Christian message in order to have "peace in our times."My guess is that when a certain material substance hits the fan, the Muslim world will unite in order to force "there is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet" upon the weakest dominoes around (Europe, no doubt). They will fight over whether the world's bones are Shiite or Sunni in a tomorrow which will never come. The threat of an endless civilizatonal war in a world with WMD's and ubiquitous AK47s, and the siren song of "peace" which comes from selling out; the desire to put food on the table; the desire for order out of a world in chaos; and the desire to wrap the global lack of nerve in a higher cause, will cause the majority of people to raise their right arms and scream "Zeig Heil!", "Give us Barrabus!". Foreign elites/peoples will prove as spineless as ours, and all truth-loving folk will end up seeing eye-to-eye. Those who point out that the whole thing is nothing but a giant farce, will be "hated by all nations", simply for saying the truth.

It is natural, and has been among all recorded European history, for peoples to desire their own ways of living, amongst people who resemble themselves in culture, language, ethnicity, and the like. The Viking invasions were the matter for considerable strife, because the Saxons, French, Scots, Irish, Rus, and the like did not wish to be ruled by Norseman, nor speak their language, nor be pushed out by them. The fighting over say, Trieste between Austria and Italy, or Alsace-Lorraine between France and Germany (those who fought there in WWII said the loser should take it) are more recent examples. This is the normal way of things.

But add in the toxic elements of a pre-ordained "saved" (attractive to those who are more skillful at things like being a fighter pilot like Gen. McPeak, or Bill Gates, or anyone in Hollywood who is a more skilled actor and prettier than 99.9999% of the population) and things get ugly fast. When combined with an idea of "racial original sin" and a group that is your substitute Jesus, even worse. Made even worse by adoption of "nice" Quakerist ideas of universalism and "all God's Children" which are part of the Christian tradition and sound so modern, when "national boundaries are obsolete" and much heartbreak was occasioned by German, Italian, and Japanese nationalism. [Fought only by of course, English, American, and Russian nationalism.]

But look, here is an "Empire of Entertainment." Coming direct from Hollywood and NYC! With plenty of action, excitement, and Housewives, both Desperate and Real! Even worse, the modern economy rewards immensely, in all sorts of ways, a few elites who sit astride key decision making processes (regulators and government), the media/infotainment, and finance/marketing in the private sector. Boring old production engineers, oil geologists, chemists, and materials scientists are nothing compared to say, a media buyer for a hip-trendy company. Who naturally fall for the ideas of a Calvinistic elite devoid of troublesome Christianity but with the form, culturally familiar, and telling them what they already want to hear.

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. Too many people just won't shut up, ever. See Congressmen posting pics of themselves on the internet. Rather, a broad international social movement created by export of America's infotainent culture and the export of a global elite power structure in the modern post-Industrial age explain IMHO most of this. Including Japanese and Israeli PC/Multi-culti idiocy.

@WhiskeyI is natural for people to want to be with just their own, but there is baggage to that kind of scenario. Those sorts of ideas tend to lead inevitably to tribal warfare and parochial "truths". "My tribe/nation/cultural reality/God is better than yours" yadda, yadda ad violent nauseum. There IS a great moral reality to ALL mankind, and Western Civ is an imperfect record of a universal truth to all men expressed in history. People willing to live with others who are different is a GOOD thing. Not only is it an antidote to fascist tendencies, but it reflects the belief that mankind is united as equals under God. The problem is that the Leftist secular version of this idea is suicidally ignorant of the realities of the world. A mystical brotherhood of man and a perfectly politically brotherhood of man are two VERY different things. Alleviating poverty and getting rid of it altogother are ALSO two very different things.Some versions of Christianity may be narrow minded (ie, good cavemen go to hell for not believing in a Jesus who hasn't even been BORN yet), but not all are.

The West should have stuck to its roots a little more honestly, and applied its trancendant values within the political realm within REASON. It shot itself in the foot instead.

Are the Jewish reasons & motivations of the bad Jews' bad things sufficiently distinct from the reasons & motivations of the minions of non-Jews who do bad things (and by "bad things" I limit the question to enabling/defending Muslims) to warrant a special concern distinct from the concern we should have about the reasons & motivations of the non-Jews who do those bad things?

Whiskey,As an expat seeking to return to the US, I fly over and go to various cities (I'm the urban kind) to see if we might fit in one of those. In every place, I go to a couple of churches and since I am a "mere Christianity" guy with no attachment to a particular denomination I always sample different ones, though only Catholic and mainstream Protestant ones. I always start from the parish bulletin board, and the visit almost always ends right there and then. The only religious experience I can still get is in an empty 800-yr-old cathedral in Europe, if no tourists snap pix.

Western Civ is an imperfect record of a universal truth to all men expressed in history. People willing to live with others who are different is a GOOD thing.

Yes. As I have articulated elsewhere, the PC MC paradigm is built upon a list of Western virtues, which include:

trying to transcend tribalism

curiosity about, and respect for, the Other

a cultivation of self-criticism.

The problem is not these virtues by themselves, but their irrational excess, which is PC MC's contribution.

I can understand the motivation of those who wish to throw out the Baby (these particular virtues, perhaps among others) with the Bathwater (their irrational excess) -- deeming the two too intertwined to bother with the Baby; though I disagree with the medicine (and the diagnosis) they seem to propose. (As for those who can't even see the precious Baby as good at all, I have little or no sympathy for them.)

Hesperado: very briefly, the universalism and moral superiority is a Jewish mind virus that is spread out everywhere, among both secular and religious Jews. When I was in the Green Party, my local chapter was mostly secular Jews, and these people felt they were being more in touch with their Jewish roots by being concerned about other peoples like Mexicans and Muslims. They fell over themselves to not be like the Nazis.

As to your other question, my personal opinion is that many Christians, both individuals and official church policy, share this Jewish mind virus, but it's a Christian mind virus. What would Jesus do, we can't turn these people away like the holy family was turned away from the inn, etc.

So to me, Jews are no more subsersive than Christians. I think Jews get more of the blame because of their visibility in Hollywood, government and business, and also the traditional anti-semitism of most cultures. After all, who is anti-semitic in the West? The larger numbers of Christians and ex-Christians. In effect, it's the larger numbers available for anti-semitism, not anything the Jews do worse than anyone else.

Regarding the topic: I support the Serbs, and I would also like the West to have closer ties with Russia, because they are our natural allies, even though Russia doesn't act like it.

Auster has too much on his plate -- Nearly Everything But the Kitchen Sink. I have sometimes wondered about bloggers like Auster and the infamous Charles Johnson -- how are they able to maintain their controlled frenzy of blogging output? They must literally be glued to their laptops 24/7 (and I thus find it difficult to believe Auster when occasionally he mentions that he had lunch with a friend and walked in the park to admire the leaves, etc.; he couldn't possibly have the time for such things).

Hi Hesperado: I answered all of your questions - quite well, I thought - but, the Baron verily disagreed and decided that it was in the best interests of the blog to delete my ten detailed posts.

I believe that my answers were very conservative in tone and content - and, let me re-iterate that I love the Jews and Israel and wish both all that is good - so, if my tame and thoughtful comments failed to pass muster then I highly doubt that the Baron will allow anyone else to tackle the topic.

Of course, I could be wrong - you know, either my answers - or my impression that an honest and open appraisal of that particular topic is verboten here for reasons that are legitimate to the decision-makers and their supporters.

Again, I apologize if I offend.

GOD will sort it all out anyway. Oh, and I believe that everyone, and I do mean everyone - and you can quote me on that - will be 'saved' in the end - it just may take a while for everyone to get there. :)

@Pat HannaganStringing a few mocking words together is easy. Researching and commenting on a complex social topic in an elucidating and truthful way, day in and day out, is very difficult. When you are lucky enough to have people who do it pro-bono, at least be grateful, even when you disagree.

There used to be a lot of somewhat contemptuous confusion about battered women and why they stay, and if they do manage to leave, why they return. It's a natural human response to fear. The guy is out to destroy them, they know it, and their response is an effort to neutralize the danger by a combination of denial and excessive sweetness. It is just what the West is engaged in with Islam. The more viciously intent they are on our demise the more we engage in the battered woman's defense, against all reason.

@Pat HannaganWe all have mouths to feed, and those of us who do the writing usually do it when other people have gone to sleep. As to Auster, he is no friend of mine and I've had strong disagreements with him. But there is a good brain there, if wavering sometimes, and if you pick and choose you can come across rare Auster nuggets. He has written some things on immigration, liberalism, the neocons etc. that are enduring classics. That alone commands my respect.Besides, you referred to someone else, Fjordman, as Fjordie, and in a mocking tone. And Fjordman both has a wider erudition and deeper output than Auster, and doesn’t write about trivial things, and has no cash box on a website from which to draw a modest sustenance. Methinks, at least “Fjordman” is warranted when discussing the Viking sage...

@Pat FlannaganI participated in one discussion at Mangan’s, in which the two gentlemen who visited us yesterday were also involved, and it was they and Mangan and the Grand Guru in absentia on one side, and me on the other. All three –nay, all four – are articulate, intelligent people. But there is something either missing or added there, some kind of a filter. In any event, I left with the impression that it’s not only a White Nationalist site but even a highly ideologically biased one. I won’t go back.

Stating that Jews have interests every bit as much as every other group does not make you a genocidalist, but it makes you a blinkered yokel. That comes from the foolish HBD absolutism that treats Jews, bugs and fish in the same vein. BTW what is the “my kind” that you refer to? Is that American Whites? Iowans? People of European ancestry? Irishmen? Anglo-Irishmen? Scots-Irishmen? Catholic Irishmen? Catholics? Protestant Irishmen? Protestants? Irish capitalist tycoons or Irish laborers? Go Navy or Go Army? And what makes you think that a Jew defines his kind and chooses to pay allegiance in fewer ways than an Irishman might? And what about a half-Jew? Do you see the doubling of the possibilities here? And why would you judge a priori which one it is?

You posted 10 different comments attempting a detailed answer of my questions?

You can always email them to me. (But please, don't bother unless you take care to determine whether you did indeed address my questions point by point specifically and precisely pertinent to their denotated purport.)

Dear Baron, thank you for having the courage to engage in this, admittedly, thankless task. You do yourself and this priceless forum endless credit.

I do not have the time and wherewithal to go into any detail at this point. However, I would like to introduce one simple concept:

There is a tremendous difference between intelligence and wisdom.

Intelligence is more often a matter of collected data and collated information.

Wisdom is "the knack" of things or process-related skill that often outstrips intelligence by leagues, if not light years.

Should there be any doubt as to whether threads of this sort are of value, please hold me up as an example.

I used to have a totally unqualified position with respect to support for the Israeli state. Much like how I have had to recalibrate my defense of the homosexual agenda, so have I found it necessary to adjust my position regarding Israel.

Between Israel's proliferation of advanced Western military technology to those who triangulate against America and its allies, along with how Post-Modern Liberal Jews continue to promote exceptionally damaging political agendas (e.g., Obama's), I have been obliged to re-examine whatever unconditional support that I may have once had.

I can only hope that this thread will allow for [cough] reasonable, rational and civil discourse on this most timely and relevant topic despite its seemingly inherent divisiveness.

Just as how Liberalism has emerged as an issue whose complicity challenges any primacy of Islam's role in the ongoing destruction of Western culture, so do the actions of Leftist Jews bear increasingly close scrutiny regarding their part in eroding modern institutions of liberty and freedom.

So-called "hate speech", "hate crimes" and other wholly unequal applications of Constitutional law rank high among the egregious trespasses committed by modern Jews. Yet, it is of crucial importance to winnow out exactly which group or faction of Jewish culture bears responsibility for this because a recent and rising tide of indiscriminate Antisemitism has manifested as an overall response which must not be allowed to go unquestioned.

Ignoring this current groundswell of Antisemitism lends unwelcome impetus to another looming holocaust which confronts the Islamic world. Modern civilization has the ability to be above such butchery and I sincerely hope that this thread can address the need for avoiding any such insanity.

Before this horror show is over, I think humanity will know just who "my kind" actually IS.There is something deeper at work in humanity than clan/religion/culture/race, etc.There is trust, the bonds of brotherhood, affection, and respect. Every last tribe that has ever graced this earth, when you scratch the surface of it, you find individuals. "Does such and such abide by his or her word?" "Did such and such really mean to say what he/she did, or was he/she just venting?" "Why did that guy, who is oh-so-British, betray his 'own kind' for a few hundred thousand pounds in the Great War?". Morality will throw "my kind" right out the window in a friggin FLASH. If Mr. X betrays his high-IQ genetic aristocracy of a race, exactly WHOSE kind is he? You can bet your rear ends that his OWN people will NOT consider him "their kind."

What does that TELL YOU?

That the TRUE definition of "my kind" goes far deeper than anything as parochial as race, culture, etc.

Some people may laugh at this sort of thing, but if you had to have someone hold your wallet for you while you stepped aside for a bit, you know dang well you'd choose "the kind" who was honest enough to give it back to you, rather than pretend he lost it.

6) All three ingredients of #5 are bad for the health of the people of #3.

7) Each of the three ingredients may have individual differences that distinguish them in some ways from the other two ingredients.

8) What makes cayenne especially -- or uniquely -- distinct from the other two spices, with regard to the problem of ill health which the meal causes?

9) So far, from among the people of #3, we have some who

a) insist that cayenne is uniquely nefarious;

b) others who claim it may not be uniquely nefarious, but still distinctively so, and sufficiently so to call attention to it in contrast to the other two spices;

c) and finally, those who are more interested in the problem of hot spices in general and how to avoid their preparation in meals and aren't interested in the distraction of how singularly bad cayenne is in comparison to the other spices, because they haven't yet received -- after years of reading and asking -- any specific persuasive answers (as opposed to amorphously grandiose theories about fabulous myths (whose tangled warps and woofs of a tapestry of complex tissues are all, of course, "facts") of the Spice Route) as to why cayenne should be singled out at all in contrast to the other spices.

Hesperado, I forgot to mention, some types of cayenne are afraid of ginger. Of the fearful types of cayenne, some have direct experience of some bad ginger, and they mistakenly think all ginger is like that, and the only way they can be safe is by pretending that all spices are really the same or should be. This is the main difference between cayenne and the other spices.

With rare exceptions, Muslims believe that the Jews control Earth, and are controlling them too. Most Muslims I've talked to think there are a few hundred million Jews in the world - actually, around 11 million.

So each Jew has to control around 125 Muslims - they have their work cut out for them, especially when you consider they have to control a few billion Gentiles at the same time, all of this while manipulating global financial markets and getting the kids into Harvard!

Plus all the reading!

Anti-Semitism is a mental disease that has to be combated 24 seven and IN ALL CONTEXTS AND IN ALL POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS, and it is not contingent on Serbia or some other issue.

The comparison with Serbia is interesting, it's instructive, but you should resist the temptation to make up “rules” and litmus tests like:

“no one is allowed to support Israel until they support Serbia.”

It should be breathtakingly obvious that anybody is free to support Israel (or Basque independence, or Tibet, or Serbia, or anyone else) without any quid pro quos set up by some blogger somewhere.

Just to be clear:

one of the most depraved and objectionable aspects of the Islamization of Europe is the reintroduction of extreme anti-Semitism and the persecution of the incredibly tiny Jewish minority.

So here is the trillion dollar question:

How do you combat Islamic anti-Semitism in Europe if you are busy promoting it yourself?

The task of winning over politically correct Jews to anti-jihad is the same as that of winning over politically correct Italian-Americans, or Swedes, or anyone else.

Regarding anti-Semitism, the litmus test should be:

If you are an anti-Semite (regardless of your opinions about Serbia), then you are a bad person, and you will be shunned by civilized human beings everywhere, all the time, everywhere, no exceptions.

Anti-semitism combines hatred of the elites, hatred of an ethnic group, hatred of a religion, and rabid conspiracy theories into the most vile mixture imagineable. People who defend the jews do so uncritically, and this ends up hurting the jews themselves, since they are the minority who is vulnerable.Jews on average study harder than their peers, and are just as hardworking. They are also clannish, however, and stick to their kind largely in order to preseve their identity. After all, if hardworking jews excel and join the larger culture, they intermarry and before long their identity evaporates. Only by sticking together do they maintain their sense of collective selves. This breeds resenment, however, when people look to their elites, where jews (because they study and work hard, AND are clannish) are overrepresented.When a society collapses, and people wish to find a scapegoat, ethnically foreign, religiously foreign elites make a nice target. Combine rabid conspiracy theories and things quickly get out of control.

Thats the crux of the problem. I don't care for people who consider themselves a racial priesthood among men, as I don't care for the Catholic Church which in the end believes the same thing, just not racially. I find the idea utterly obnoxious.

However, it is utterly wrong to hate a Catholic or Jew off the bat without knowing them. Likewise, it is utterly wrong to blame an entire group KNOWING that there are good people involved who adhere to the belief system for a million and one reasons.

Jews who believe themselves to be worth more in the eyes of God simply because they are their mothers children, while feeling absolutely NO guilt about it, repulse me. Catholic priests who consider everyone illiterate visigothic children under their patronizing care do the same.

But everyone falls short of the glory of God. The important thing is that they do so individually, NOT as a group.

He calls us by name. We are measured by the content of our characters, not who our mothers are, or who our religious leaders are. THATS what makes it TRULY universal.

In response to elitist - the Baron is merely developing a consistent standard. By the nature of their analogous positions, any member of the CJ should support both Israel and Serbia in order to maintain a consistent argument. Support for Israel while decrying Serbian "atrocities" is an easy way to see that someone supports Israel to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism and not out of a deep conviction to defend the West.

Hesperado - I'm going to answer your question by talking about Christians. While Christians are, statistically speaking, underrepresented amongst the upper echelons of society, we're there in pretty big numbers. And the reason I'm arguing with Christians is because they are the adopted brethren of the Jews.

And they are also making exactly the same mistakes. Now, the question has to be asked - are these Christians church-attending and God-fearing Christians? Replace Christian with Jew, and you get the actual question I'm trying to ask.

Because I'd probably say that Whiskey ispretty close with his analysis - these people don't really believe deep down in their cores about God and Jesus and in particular the Eschaton (the Last Four Things). Because I do. I've heard God. He phrased Himself positively, but I damn well saw what the corrolary was and I almost tore my hair out in horror (or a shirt, if we're getting Biblical here).

So, because they like the bells and whistles but don't actually get the core, they appear as Christians but really are not. And because they're from the same cultural and religious stock as the Jews, the ultimate effect is the same.

Fundamentally, it's a matter of totality. A Jew or Christian who practices the fullness of their faith as best they are able will be a far more natural ally than a lukewarm Christian who self-designates as a "conservative". I suppose it's a fight between those who are members of the Churches Militant and Churches Suicidal. Not sure what the equivalent terms for Jews would be - any comers?

I was genuinely annoyed by the fact that certain people hijacked a post that took me many hours to write, and quite frankly years to think about, thereby destroying what could otherwise have been an interesting and fruitful discussion of a highly important subject. If I regret anything it’s not deleting Chechar when he started hijacking the thread after just five comments. It’s not the only time he has displayed this characteristic bully behavior and he should be called on it immediately. A person has every right to ask a bully to leave his private home and should offer no apologies for doing so. It’s quite rude to derail other people’s work when you know quite well that your presence is not wanted, and although he has his flaws, Chechar is not so stupid that he doesn’t know that. He even admits himself that he was rude.

It is an objective fact that the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation as a concept is a child of the Western Enlightenment and has been disproportionately spread by the USA and France in particular. That was the subject of my original essay. I have gradually come to realize that some of the crucial problems the West suffers from today can probably be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It is an objective fact that the direct intellectual input of Jews when it comes to shaping Enlightenment thought, with the possible exception of Spinoza, was tiny.

The Enlightenment was a creation of Europeans, and if we suffer from its effects today this is largely our own fault. We shouldn’t blame others for it, be that the Chinese, the Muslims or the Jews. Let’s leave whining and a total lack of self-criticism to Muslims, Africans and other primitive peoples. Europeans export wine, Arabs export whine. That’s how it should be.

Even the legal emancipation of Jews and their release from the ghetto in Europe was a direct result of Enlightenment values and ideas. Frankly, I have more than once suspected that the love many Western Jews have for post-Enlightenment ideologies, Marxism being one of them, is a result of Jewish gratitude for having been released from the ghetto, included their own, self-imposed ghetto. Annoying as that may be sometimes, it is not our main problem.

The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant. This means that people like Chechar hijacked the thread and destroyed what could have been a promising discussion by spamming it with largely irrelevant issues. I have every right to be angry about that, give him the middle finger and ask him to leave. He has no right to whine and complain for this, none whatsoever. He is a bully who intrudes where he knows he is unwanted, yet pretends to be a victim and wallows in self-pity when the owner asks him to leave. This is Muslim-like behavior.

Tanstaafl and his ilk believe that I am an “apologist” for the Zionists. I’m not. I am a Zionist. At least, if by that you mean that I think Jews should have a country of their own. On the other hand, I believe the Serbs, the English, the French, the Swedes and, yes, the Germans and the Austrians should have a country of their own as well. I was annoyed by Lawrence Auster’s anti-German attitudes. Germans today are not trying to invade other people’s countries and ethnically cleanse the locals; they are trying to prevent other, often hostile tribes with a much lower technological and economic level from ethnically cleansing the Germans in their own homeland. They have every right to do so, and we should support them in their struggle. Germany does not exist to provide lebensraum for Arabs and Turks. Germany exists as a homeland for the German people, who are a real nation and not “socially constructed.”

Jewish history has shown us that being a minority at the mercy of the majority population can be dangerous. I fully understand why Jews today do not want to repeat this mistake, but I also think they should for that very reason understand why the Dutch or the Norwegians do not want to suffer the same fate. I will continue to support a specific country for the Jews, just like I will continue to support England as a country for the English, France for the French, Finland for the Finns, Italy for the Italians and Serbia for the Serbs. I see no contradiction between doing the former and doing the latter, and I’m not a good guy if I do one thing and a “Nazi” if I do the other. These policies are perfectly compatible as far as I am concerned.

It is an objective fact that many Christian organizations in the West are currently dominated by Multiculturalists who support open borders and non-European mass immigration. It would be silly to completely ignore this, but it would also be silly not to cooperate with sensible Christians who do good work, like the Baron and Dymphna who run this blog. Likewise, it is an objective fact that many Scandinavians tend to be pretty left-wing, politically speaking. I know; I live here. People should still support Scandinavians who write sensible things, as I do.

Jews should be treated in the same manner as Christians or Scandinavians. Support those who do good work, and criticize those who don’t. It’s as simple as that. I massively dislike George Soros, and I distrust the ADL. Both are perfectly legitimate positions, not “anti-Semitism.” I still see no reason why I cannot appreciate the work done by Andrew Bostom or Bat Ye’or, or why I cannot support Israelis who fight against Europe’s most ancient and evil enemy: Islam.

The only people who have a problem with the above mentioned position are those who think that there is really just one giant organism called “the Jews,” but with millions of heads in order to confuse everybody else. This is, frankly, not a very rational position. If people don’t like me questioning their intelligence then they shouldn’t display such a blatant lack of it.

1) I'm afraid the title contains a logical error. Actually, you don't apply the Serbia standard, but the other way around - you want the Israel standard to be applied to Serbia and you believe that that's the standard to be applied by any honest counterjihadist. I fully agree with this perspective, but then, for logical accuracy, the correct title would be "The Israel Standard".2) If you apply the Israel standard, then, along with "we support Israel", one of the (symbolic) banners of your blog would be "we support European ethnostates". Which means the same rights to military defense or legal defense (like similar rules to grant citizenship). 3) starting with the letter of your Israeli reader, the premise of your posts is that Serbs and Israelis are equally persecuted victims of globalist anti-white liberalism. I don't know what standards you hold in this respect, but, in my view, a minor, without consequences pain in the a## like the Goldstone Report does not equal bombing to dust the infrastructure of a country and bringing its leaders handcuffed to The Hague. I just hate injustice when I see it, that's all. Well, for me, justice would be to aplly fully the Israel Standard. Like a Goldstone Report for Serbia, and that's all.

"Now to fly a jet fighter, let alone engage it in combat, takes superb instincts and an ability for a split-second correct apprehension of reality ... "

To fly a jet fighter or drive an F1 race car is no sign of intelligence in fact quite the contrary you have to be a bit dim of instinct and the apprehension of reality, more minded to a false reality than true.

The dirty hands of the draftsman and the engineers is where the intelligence can be found.

The real question for me is, "Is the core ideology of Judaism as practiced in the West harmful to the West? If so, can elements of that core ideology be identified and mitigated to avoid world war?"

In the same way that Islam is more than the Koran, Judaism is more than the Old Testament. So, I have the same question for both religions: Do the 1) 'extra' holy books and related centuries of scholarly criticism, 2) mandatory religious laws, 3) legitimate religious leadership following accepted doctrine, and 4) overall cultural milieu and/or behavior of both highly devout and less devout adherents, lead to significant problems for the West?

As uncomfortable as it may be, if it is fair to ask these questions of Islam, then it is fair to ask these questions of Judaism - with Judaism classified as a Middle Eastern versus Western culture.

So, perhaps the real question is, "Does the ideology of Judaism fundamentally represent a Middle Eastern way of thinking - or a Western way of thinking - or a positive bridge of both - or a tragically lethal combination?"

To critics of any questions: I must ask, "Do the questions disturb you, or the answers?"

Granted, I could ask the same questions of Christianity and atheism. However, considering that the United States may very well enter World War III - a war in which MY own son and daughter may be drafted to fight and die - I feel totally justified in asking that question of both Islam and Judaism.

And, I fear that those who attempt to change the subject out of false deference to the tragic results of the last war MAY be destined to lead us to repeat history rather than honoring its victims - the vast majority of whom were neither Muslims nor Jews.

Now getting back to Fjordman's original post about the creation of an imaginary nation: that's something that politicians like Tony Blair (English) and Gordon Brown (Scottish) have spent many years working on and arguing for.

You'll recall that old lady asking Gordon Brown why so many foreigners were here in the UK and being described by Brown later as a bigot, which is par for the course whenever anyone questioned their ruling ideology.

See Fjordman's first couple of links in his original post for leaks showing that the British government deliberately and secretly began a huge social engineering experiment based on some imaginary land they wanted to live in, where everyone held hands and sang songs together. Unfortunately the likes of Blair and Brown insisted that we all live there with them - even though that land does not exist anywhere on earth, and never will.

Fjordman's quite right to be annoyed when some internet 'bullies' hijack that thread - with its crucial topic - and by so doing, deflect attention away from what the likes of Blair and Brown have done over the years, and start with the same incredible conspiracy theories beloved by so many Muhammadens: 'It's the Jews! Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were being manipulated all the time by secret Jewish mind control techniques!'

Before anyone else attacks Dymphna for deleting comments -- it is not she, but I who have been wielding the sword here this morning.

I may have missed a few additional ones that should have been culled, if they came in before I woke up today -- there were a lot of them here waiting for me when I logged in.

I shall continue to be ruthless in my deletion of comments that I consider uncivil, insulting, ill-intentioned, and/or off-topic. The judgment of what fits those criteria is solely my own.

I refuse to allow another thread to be ruined the way Fjordman's was the other day.

Oh -- in case you were wondering, I no longer believe in free speech.

I am now an autocrat, and as many of you have repeatedly told me, I am afraid of the truth, so I am censoring and suppressing the real defenders of the West, those who would otherwise be my staunchest allies.

The article by Fjordman and its repercussions might turn out to be an inspiration for me to write something at my blog.

To be clear regarding what I wrote above. I'm in no way against discussing things that are taboo. But it has to be done intelligently and constructively. Defecating dogs need to be sent out of the room.

If anything, I'm sort of a virtuoso taboo buster, in the sense that I identify new taboos (instead of bitching on about old ones), and that during the years I have been able to trigger hysterical PC fits out of people where almost none would have expected it -- by pushing exactly that button.

Auster and Mangan are just two of many examples. According to Auster I'm the evilest Nazi on the planet (no surprise from the King of Hyperbole, but I win the first prize :-). According to Mangan I'm far more antisemitic than Kevin MacDonald. Just to name two examples.

Both reactions are best understood in terms of what happens to an autist when he's pushed out of his comfort zone. Uncontrolled PC spasms do not seem to come as much from ideology as it comes from a fundamental way of how the human mind functions.

The case of Dennis Mangan is especially interesting. He's deeply invested in the Proposition Nation idea. People mistake him for a reactionary because of his way of discussing the JQ. But in fact he's 100% a progressivist. This becomes all clear when he meets by the criticism of the Propostition Nation with PC spasms and accusations about "antisemitism". And mind you, then I didn't propose anything different from what I have said above in the thread here. (We need to bring of the spectre of Jim Crow to explain this typically American reaction of his).

In my view, this shows better than anything how Fjordman is correct in what he says above. The focus should be on the paradigm of the Proposition Nation. The JQ is a dead end (for a number of reasons). Dennis Mangan is a perfect specimen to illustrate this, and one day I will write a case study about him.

You have just written three comments that show exactly why the Baron needs to delete a lot of comments here. Given the Middle Easter toilet standard of your posts, you obviously didn't even wanted them to stay.

Let me set you straight about one thing though. You claim that comments do not get deleted at Mangan's. You haven't got a clue. Comments critical of the Proposition Nation are extensively deleted at Mangan's. Mangan has got pre-moderation and harder moderation than GoV. He allows more rudeness, but cuts out more intelligent arguments.

I'm leaving your response intact, even though the comments you quote are gone (I can still consult his originals in my email, so your quotes are accurate, fwiw).

Unless Pat amends his snide, insulting, and/or obscene commenting style, it's likely that all his future comments will disappear. Eventually he may turn into another Nodrog -- the moment I see his nic at the top of a comment, I hit "delete", without even pausing to read it.

That will help cement my reputation as a closed-minded, intolerant, censorious autocrat.

In my memory Pat was a much more sensible guy that what's at display right here and now. Maybe he hit the bottle a bit too early today? I hope he could come back to his senses (another day). However, right now you are very clearly doing the right thing.

That will help cement my reputation as a closed-minded, intolerant, censorious autocrat.

You are simply getting better at discriminating :-)

And unlike e.g. Dennis Mangan you are not a hypocrite. Mangan has always censored more then you, but at the same time also whined a lot about others censoring. You have never been hypocritical in this way, and I'm sure you will never be.

Since you are suddenly so motivated to expose 'lies' in posts/comments here, I hope you will be consistent and allow me to show where Fjordman has lied about what Chechar actually said:

(Although there were many slurs and false accusations against Chechar in this rant of Fjordman's, I will focus only on one glaring lie here):

Fjordman says:I was genuinely annoyed by the fact that certain people hijacked a post that took me many hours to write, and quite frankly years to think about, thereby destroying what could otherwise have been an interesting and fruitful discussion of a highly important subject. If I regret anything it’s not deleting Chechar when he started hijacking the thread after just five comments. It’s not the only time he has displayed this characteristic bully behavior and he should be called on it immediately. A person has every right to ask a bully to leave his private home and should offer no apologies for doing so. It’s quite rude to derail other people’s work when you know quite well that your presence is not wanted, and although he has his flaws, Chechar is not so stupid that he doesn’t know that. He even admits himself that he was rude.

But here is what Chechar actually said:

Chechar said...I plead guilty to the rudeness charge, Fjordman: but my rudeness against you was limited to my blog and once at Tan’s, where you have never commented on in any of our threads. But I have never insulted you here at GoV (as you now are insulting me).

Plus: he didn't derail or hijack anything, as anyone who reads that thread can see.

Chechar can only discuss the JQ. And its a radioactive topic so it triggers numerous people in the wrong way (in all sorts of directions). Chechar isn't responsible for the fact the the JQ is radioactive (obviously). But he's often the one initiating the derailing of a thread.

This is the pattern:Enter Chechar -> JQ -> thread derailed, and the real topic no longer discussed.

Obvious remedy: Block Chechar from any discussion where the topic is not already the JQ.

Can I just say that I find this whole episode quite astonishing, to be honest. The weird obsessions some people have! As I've said earlier, the fact that the likes of Tony Blair (English) and Gordon Brown (Scottish), engaged a secret social engineering project in Great Britain, as indicated by the leaks Fjordman very kindly linked to in his original post, and sustained that project for many years, in order to try to bring reality into line with a fantasy land that only ever existed inside their heads is worthy of discussion.

And believe you me, when 'the man in the street' starts criticising Blair and Brown and what they have done and said, we all know perfectly well that there's no need to look any further than ... Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

And can I just add that there's nothing more bo-ring than going on to one website/forum and finding people there endlessly whining about irrelevant 'he said, she said' stuff from some other forum. If anyone cared about what he said, or she said, on another forum then that's where we'd be. But we're not.

Although I opted out of entering the fray concerning Fjordmans last contribution I'll pop in here and say that his and now the Barons posting reveals a deep polemic in regards to whether Universalist ideals can be retained while rejecting sections of humanity based on said differences(Islam,Judaism etc.). My suggustion to Fjordman is to go a little more academic and instead of using political definitions such as Nation, move to less loaded words. For example, write and contemplate on the subject of "Inclusion" based on "Difference" or "Discriminatory Selection". I know it wont completley side step those who chase shadows,but maybe the shadowchasers will be crowded out by the rest of us.

Finally I'm glad to see others such as Whisky share my opinion on the subject of Humanism.

I wondered a while ago about politicians creating a fantasy land and then trying to bring reality into line with that idea.

I suggest that working class people don't have the time or the inclination to deal in fantasy worlds in that way, they're too busy living their lives. And when someone is doing an actual job, the truth matters. If I drive to my work tonight I have to steer my car along the actual road and turn actual corners, and watch for other cars while I'm at it. If I don't deal with reality during that 30 minute journey it'll be all over for me pretty damn quick. Anyone who actually works for a living deals in the truth. Then have to, or else their actual work wouldn't really get done, and they'd end up sacked. And no lecture tours or autobiographies for them if that happens. The dole if they're lucky, hunger and selling the car in order to pay the electric bill if they're not.

Politicians on the other hand can afford to work in a fantasy world. It doesn't matter to them if they don't deal in reality and function in a disconnected way which doesn't actually achieve anything. They're sorted. They don't have to face the consequences of what they think and say. Not in a real, hands-on, day-to-day sense. There's a fundamental disconnect between the life of a politician and reality.

If politicians had to live in reality - and by that I mean have to go and work shifts down a mine, or go on a fishing boat for a trip, or spend 3 weeks solid doing the nightshift on an oil platform - then the world would be a better place because instead of living in a fantasy land of their own creation, politicians would know what reality actually is.

So I'd say that then: politicians should be forced to do a 3 week trip offshore roughnecking if they get elected. Then halfway through their term they should have to go to sea for a trip & work as a deckhand aboard a trawler. It'd do them the world of good.

Having looked at the total of the contributions of Mr. Monologue to this discussion up to this point I'd like to support both what Fjordman addressed to the Tan person and what ConSwede has advised Baron and Dymphna. This is not a matter of avoidance of certain topics, but setting the bar for the minimal level of general erudition, maturity, soundness of judgment and psychological health of those permitted to enter. I’d no idea where Monologue had come from but after three or four exchanges it became clear that this is a windup agent provocateur with a single implanted chip and the level of reasoning of a 9-yr-old. There is so much energy, time and space that’s been devoted in this thread to Mr. Monomaniac Monologue that it’s embarrassing, given the quality of his arguments and manners. There should be an automatic Eject as soon as a known flamer logs in, or else the whole thing becomes a soggy mush.

Mary: "he didn't derail or hijack anything, as anyone who reads that thread can see."

Oh really? Did I say anything about Jews in the essay? No. Did any of the first comments do so? No. Who was the first person to say anything about Jews at all on that thread? Chechar. If you cannot see this then you don't have eyes, plain and simple. Yes, it was he who derailed that thread, and the only mistake was not to delete his comment immediately upon hijacking it. That mistake should not be repeated a second time. This is not a spam blog for people who have an obsession with Jews. If the subject at hand doesn’t specifically relate to censorship by the ADL or something that has some kind of link to Jewish organizations, I recommend deleting comments that derail the topic. I could write about strawberry ice cream, and certain people would still find a way to write about Jews. They can do that somewhere else, not here.

Now I’m done with this discussion. I have better things to do with my time.

The "Serbia Standard" is concise, stands out, and gains people's attention more readily that the "Israel Standard" would. The latter would simply stimulate yet another round of JQ-obsessing, which is what I hope to avoid.

Either title is equally valid, since the standard applies in both directions. Citing Serbia in the title is more useful for rhetorical purposes; that's why I picked it.

Yes it is quite possible that Mangan considers critique of the Proposition Nation as treasonous, and that he therefore deletes comments with such critique.

But you seem to have missed the whole point of Fjordman's article:Proposition Nation = "When treason becomes the norm" (start with reading the title of his article!)

We are here talking about two opposite ideas which logically will see each other as treasonous. I accept that from an American point of view, critique of the Proposition Nation is seen as treasonous.

Quite as anyone objecting to Hitler's rape-and-ruin-Germany-by-means-of-invading-Russian-tanks of 1945, would have been seen harshly as a traitor. Quite as anyone opposing Soviet Communism in Russia would have been treated the same way.

The one that is himself deeply into treachery against his own people, will of course see the one representing the sound non-suicidal position as a traitor.

Anyway, we need to get rid of the collective suicide that the paradigm of the Proposition Nation means.

Unmixing the martini does not require brainpower. It requires firepower. Which, when the time comes, will be available.

CS's comments about Mangan are ... well, I don't know where he's getting that from. Anyway: proposition nations are false and impossible. Nations are based on ethnic and extended familial relationships. Immigrants from other nations can not themselves become members of the nation they move to; their descendants may be, but only by thoroughly intermarrying with the natives - diluting their foreign identity into the existing identity. Groups that intentionally keep themselves separate - in cultural and marriage terms, most specifically - will get their wish: regardless of original intentions, they will eventually be seen as not part of the surrounding nation.

This is a big part of why Jewishness keeps constantly resurfacing as a topic of acrimony - because separateness is exactly what Jews make a point of.

Mangan is a nice and intelligent fellow, but an American Progressivist at the depth of his heart. He would need a proper dosis of exorcism (but he's not at all aware of the need). He's something of an American Sarkozy, saying a string a singular utterances that sound good, but who when it counts stick to the idea of the Proposition Nation and the core tenets of multiculturalism. This is of course true of all American conservatives, but I bring up Mangan since he's the most interesting and enlightening case -- which relate precisely to the discussion Fjordman initiated.

The "Serbia Standard" is concise, stands out, and gains people's attention more readily that the "Israel Standard" would. The latter would simply stimulate yet another round of JQ-obsessing, which is what I hope to avoid.

Either title is equally valid, since the standard applies in both directions. Citing Serbia in the title is more useful for rhetorical purposes; that's why I picked it.

Baron, I understand that you don't have time or perhaps you have your reasons to avoid going there, but my post stands: it's not the same thing, since you suggest to measure Serbia by the Israeli standard, not the other way around. So, the point of reference is Israel. And the two countries have already been and are still treated by HUGELY different standards by the international community, for similar strategies of defense.

But I accept that you want to avoid the subject-that-can't-be-named and you're tired of it. It's just that sometimes, to be logically, factually and humanly consistent, I don't know how it can be avoided

He mentions in a comment today that objecting to mass deportation of Jews is what he believes CS is referring to as being 100% progressivist.

I happen to think that mass deportations and forcible population movements of various sorts are inevitable in various places, however from disapproving of such events to being in favor of proposition nations - that is a stretch.

I will leave assessments of CS's honesty as an exercise for the reader.

Now I’m done with this discussion. I have better things to do with my time.

I see.

Well, you didn't apologize for the lie you told above, in fact you just ignored it, and then continued to press on with the "hijack" and " derailing" slurs. He didn't hijack anything. He asked you a legitimate question, one you could have answered and then gone on with your life. Instead, in response to the question Takuan launched into a truly puzzling name-calling frenzy, and then you yourself joined in with that action later in the thread. It was this overreaction and foray into the world of extreme nastiness that "derailed" the thread. It wasn't nice to watch and I don't think you understand how badly you came off in this.

Anyways, it is obvious that you are at your wits end with Chechar, for reasons I don't really understand. But in no way shape or form did he do what you accuse him of, you and your 'friends' bizarre overreaction to his question has done that.Can you not see you are blaming him for your own behavior? Isn't that behavior exactly what you described as "Muslim-like"? Oh, the irony.

I am with Pat: you all best just delete whatever you don't like and be done with it I guess, but stooping to calling good people stuff like "defecating dogs", "flies", "Nazi's" and "Muslims" just because you don't agree with them makes you appear a bunch of whinging hypocrites.

First, I never heard of a "Proposition Nation" before two days ago. Some turns of phrase are useful; others distracting and oversimplify. The more important issue is the process the West uniquely engendered and which has gone through complex permutations over the centuries: the process of transcending tribalism towards universalism. This process substantively pre-dates the Enlightenment. The "invented nations" of Revolutionary France and America are not artificial constructs as Fjordman would have it; their attempts at sociopolitically codifying universalism and inculcating that through cultural pedagogy themselves grew organically out of Western universalism that pre-dates the Enlightenment.

In sum, Fjordman's fixation on the "Proposition Nation" tends to oversimplify the complexities involved in the Western tension between Tribalism and Universalism (if it does not ignore that tension altogether).

And this is not to mention the hyperbolic deployment of an inflammatory word like "treason" that botches good rhetoric and sets up a question-begging in favor of conspiracy-theory conceptions.

Broadly speaking, the analytical flaws I keep seeing when people in the AIM attempt to answer the question -- Why is the West being so colossally remiss in condemning Islam and taking the logical steps such a condemnation entails? -- involve undue delimitations (= culprits) by which to come up with an explanation.

And paradoxically, along with these delimited (simplistic) culprits, is a context of exaggerating the extent of the disease. So what gets set up is a simplistically delimited culprit exaggerated to monstrous proportions, in order to explain the Problem. (This, in turn, sets up an amusing paradox of its own: the Elites supposedly controlling the entire West can't be so large in numbers that they begin to impinge, demographically, on The Common People; nor, however, can they be so minuscule as to make it implausible that they wield as much power as is being imputed to them. This, in its turn, generates variations onf the theme of the Stupid Masses explanation -- whereby we simultaneously champion The Common People whilst implying they are Stupid Sheep. If we then wish to relieve the weight of Mass Stupidity in the explanation, we have to re-apportion more power to the Dastardly Elites, able to manipulate masses of people and institutions so prodigiously to near-fantastic proportions; and so forth.)

Granted, the nature of the Problem (as expressed in the italicized question above) does invite such delimitation-exaggeration responses. But we must resist such temptations, not yield to them and then exacerbate that by waxing analytic.

Re: The simple fact is that when it comes to giving birth to the Proposition Nation, which was the subject of my original essay, Jews were quite irrelevant.

Quite right. Nevertheless, if you are an American, discussing the JQ within the context of “Proposition Nation” is germane. We need to discuss not just how and why PN originated, but what to do about it. For the latter, one must identify the groups and power centers that push PN on America. And Jews, as a group, are one of those forces. The trick is that they are not the single or even the major force.

To discuss the issue comprehensively you have to start from the Democratic Party, that simply gets more voters and more power through PR. The Republican Party, that’s really a hopeless mishmash all atremble every time it’s accused of “Racism” and pushes the PR nonsense along with other inanities like The American Dream, New World Order, City on the Hill, universal Democracy etc. There are the churches and church-affiliated groups. The ethnics who always push to have more of their own tribe admitted in and brought to the trough of taxpayer-financed goodies. There are the intellectual useful idiots and the limousine liberals.

And then, there are the individuals. The great architects and apologists for Proposition Nation in the last half century have been Presidents Johnson and GW Bush, and Senator Ted Kennedy. John McCain as POTUS candidate made a speech about how America’s strength is not that it’s based on common heritage and ethnic bonds, but on an idea – Proposition Nation. Just discussing these four individuals and what they represent with respect to PR can easily take 200-pages.

So in this context, for someone to barge in and criticize you for not mentioning the Joos – and them alone – is a clear indication of psychosis. People with psychosis ought to be barred entry so that sane persons can discuss the Jews—and others—in the context of PR.

He mentions in a comment today that objecting to mass deportation of Jews is what he believes CS is referring to as being 100% progressivist.

Yet another hysterical PC spasm from Mangan. Who can take him seriously anymore?

Regarding the rest:1. Dennis Mangan is an American.2. American have the Jim Crow narrative in their back bone.3. Americans have just as much in their backbone the belief that granting everyone (every minority group) citizenship is the only remedy against these horrors.4. Americans actually believe that having citizenship at a group level for every minority group, is the only way to guaranteeing their civil rights.5. The spectre of Jim Crow even makes them think that without citizenship they would meet the most horrifying sort of oppression.6. When it comes to Mangan we see the result of this fear-mongering in an interesting way, when he automatically translates "not having citizenship" with "being deported".7. Interesting also his fixation about the Jews, in spite there not being any fixation about Jews in my proposal.

Clearly Mangan's strongly emotionally held ideas about citizenship put him at odds with the concept of the ethostate. He's stuck with the Proposition Nation no matter what he says. This is what we see from American conservatives all the time. A lot of Sarkozy style babbeling. But when it really counts they are still stuck in the same old American Progressivism.

You have earned the Nodgrog Prize for your flailing, unfailing dedication to bad-faith argumenation, culminating in this, your final and apparently alcohol-fueled comment here:

Anyway I have enjoyed the small hours of this morning's public holiday riling "the Baron" and getting deleted time and again.

Sadly I must be off to be sleep, perchance to dream a White Nation unencumbered with..[insert schoolyard bully name-calling here]...

Good night all, I hope that we may never cross paths again.

Be assured, sir, that our paths indeed won't meet in this world. We Irish have many failings, but the saddest one is the Celtic Cross of substance abuse. As the punchline to the old, not-so-funny joke goes, "God invented whiskey to keep the Irish from taking over the world".

Now if we'd only been able to abstain like the Jews do (i.e., always eat before breaking out the booze), why everyone could hate us also for being smart, devious, and successful. But since we can't abstain, we're reduced to throwing rocks at those groups who can...

As Takaun said earlier, this is about --

...setting the bar for the minimal level of general erudition, maturity, soundness of judgment and psychological health of those permitted to enter...

This is my living room and it's good to see you heading out the door under your own steam. Sweet dreams, fella. May the angels of your better nature waken you with few memories of your behavior here.

You may not return, even if you're singing hymns and looking like an altarboy. You went too far. Even alcohol, that great disinhibitor of civlization, is not sufficient excuse. If ever I should see your name, I'll hit the delete button.

Nodrog, when he was finally aware of being barred completely, set up some kind of blog devoted to watching our every move. I haven't seen it but ppl email us about it. Maybe you could join him and while away the drunken hours over there.

Your points 3 and 4 are made up out of whole cloth and wishful thinking. Depending on intent, they may be deliberate lies. The details of how and why they are wrong are an old argument that has been discussed sufficiently elsewhere in the past; the short version is that the American people, the American nation, _did_ exist for quite some time, as a generally homogeneous mix of English, Scots, Germans, and various other European strains. This nation can still be identified and distinguished from the Nigerians and Hmong, who are _not_ Americans.

I still don't see any actual evidence or cited quotes from Mangan to support your wild elaborations on what you surmise his unconscious expression of his innermost fears.

I really didn't know this, and I must say it changes a lot. Or maybe explains a lot.

If any kind of public outlet accepts money, their objectivity can be influenced. But if it is their living, well then their objectivity can be bought.

I wonder how many politicians, journalists have started off with the best of intentions, but found money, career and just plain survival is more important then the reasons they started in the first place. The road to all our destructions.

I find it bizarre, to say the least, that this blog can be so frank about a large section of society but reduced to such overt fear and policing when dealing with just one section of society.

Boy, I wish you and Fjordman were independently wealthy and could spend two or three or five years living & traveling in various parts of America. Your theses, above, would of necessary experience and intellectual honesty require you to refine those observations down to "some Americans".--------@ Hesperado, who said:

the hyperbolic deployment of an inflammatory word like "treason" that botches good rhetoric...

Do you not think that some of your interlocutors, seeing that phrase, would wonder if you aren't more infected with PC/MC than you might have supposed?

It's such a shame that Fjordman's original essay on the Idea Nation was hijacked and submerged under a tide of cyclical irrelevancy.

When I first went to university 15 years ago I had the proposition of the Idea Nation forced down my throat endlessly. At the time I wasn't eloquent or sober enough to develop the frame of mind to counter that. I just knew then that it was bad for my culture and my nation. And all cultures and nations.

Thank you, Fjordman, for that essay. I can't put into words how excited I was when I finished reading it, expecting to see a spirited debate in the Comments below. It's one of the most important essays I've read in ages. My disappointment mirrors yours, Baron, Dymphna, Takuan, Fjordman.

More's the pity that some commenters seem to have ignored the purpose of this thread, ignored Conservative Swede's comments, and then, astonishingly, ignored Fjordman's response to this thread, to continue talking about 'The Jews.' Fjordman, I share your disappointment. Please continue your inspirational and insightful writing. And thanks beyond words to Gates of Vienna for hosting him.

If talking about these issues means vigilance to cut some trolls off at the pass, so be it.

I would like to re-introduce a point made by Rosalie in Fjordman's thread. It really gets to the core of things regarding the Jewish Question and does it with relative fairness. To paraphrase:

"Ethno-state for me but not for thee."

A secondary issue that needs airing is; what portion of Jews oppose the formation of Israel?

If the answer to that question is, "only a very few", then there is a fundamental and highly offensive hypocrisy at work.

I continue to support the notion of ethno-states so long as they, in and of themselves, do not incorporate massively inhumane practices in their maintenance and operation.

That said, the definite role that Liberal Jews play with respect to advocating mass immigration flies in the face of simultaneously insisting upon a separate Jewish state.

The disproportionate influence that Liberal Jews have had and continue to exert over Western thought, per force, merges any debate of the Propositional Nation with some portion of the Jewish Question.

The only thing which would disqualify that notion is if Liberal Jews were, for the majority, against the formation of Israel. To date, there is no indication of this although I welcome any cites, one way or the other.

I think that America, as a Propositional Nation, has seen the original model distorted out of all proportion or functionality.

In its original incarnation, America was predominately populated by European immigrants who had a large degree of commonality regarding culture, ethics and religious practices. The most immediate divergence from this pattern of immigration was the introduction of African slaves and the negative repercussions of that one episode continue to resonate even now.

Those modern Liberals and others who regard America's "melting pot" model as one that can be expanded to embrace inclusion on a global scale can only do so by ignoring the obvious problems that arose from earlier introduction of slave culture.

Furthermore, these modern advocates of mass immigration seem to ignore how earlier arriving European immigrants came from a very similar cultural and technological milieu. It goes beyond absurd to assume that primitive Third World denizens will, somehow, miraculously manage to successfully integrate into the advanced technological culture of America today.

America's technological supremacy does not automatically confer adeptness with same upon all who manage to struggle ashore. Quite possibly, many Liberals who are relatively illiterate about technology and its creation view it as some sort of panacea which can resolve these glaring deficiencies. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In this manner, the originally functional model of America as a Propositional Nation has been warped beyond all recognition. As TakSey is so fond of noting, several drops of hot sauce in the melting pot is just fine but toss in a few cups and you get an indigestible mess.

America is experiencing severe problems digesting the hordes of largely incompatible immigrants that are being given admission here.

None of this even begins to address the supreme incompatibility of Islam with our Constitutional Republic but the influx of non-assimilating Muslims is symptomatic of Modern Liberalism's fantasy world view of what constitutes a functional nation.

Still Mangan's hysterical leap from "not having citizenship" to "being deported en masse" needs to be explained. There is a process of emotions, thinking, fears or something passing through his mind from the one to the other. What was it? His pathological reaction is highly remarkable.

Takuan Seiyo: Nevertheless, if you are an American, discussing the JQ within the context of “Proposition Nation” is germane. We need to discuss not just how and why PN originated, but what to do about it.

Thank you for confirming much of my most recent comment's content. I hope we can keep this discussion on track as it is truly illuminating.

You've bruised yourself jumping to conclusions on that one. I am not, nor is the Baron, constrained re what we say because of the people who CHOOSE to donate to us. You've got it backwards: we put up posts and then they donate.

It didn't start that way; the Baron was employed full-time in a lucrative position when we opened the doors here.

Starting over seven years ago, here is how we evolved:

1. The Baron was concerned about my deep grieving over the death of my daughter. Knowing that my intellect needed to be gainfully employed in order to distract my mind from Shelagh's sudden demise, he suggested we do a blog together. Back then we'd been commenting at The Belmont Club and LGF but he knew I needed more intellectual stimulation -- as was obvious in my exceedingly long comments in Wretchard's thread...

2. He's the informed history buff in our family, thanks to his quite comprehensive education in the then-excellent English school system (getting thru his A levels with flying colors permitted him to skip his freshman year in college when he ret'd to the US). So he came up with the name of our blog because...

3. Post-9/11 we were suddenly faced with what we'd wanted to avoid: the incursions of Islam into Western civilization. Thus, the amazing victory in Vienna in 1683 became the emblematic and obvious choice of a name for our effort here;

4. We joined Pajamas Media when it came around. The deal was to accept their adverts in exchange for money based on our traffic level;

5. The hidden clause of PC/MC -- those Hollywood types, even the 9/11 converts like Simon -- went into effect when El Ingles wrote a series of descriptive essays outlining possibilities for the UK if things went on as they were. They panicked out in Hollywood. Called us on the phone and told us to take down their ads and delete any references to them. We wuz history...

[I'll ignore the LGF controversy for the sake of brevity. Call it "American Ignorance stumbles across European Reality & A.I. gets taken for a ride". Eventually LGF went right round the bend and scuttled back into his pre 9/11 leftist cave. In short, "the mills of God grind slowly...]

6. So we asked our readers to decide: should we do ads or ask for donations to cover our costs. Connectivity is expensive here in the boondocks. Readers promptly sent enough for the rest of the year...

I don’t think that the JQ cognitive dissonance relative to Israel that does exist, notably among the neocons, is of better than marginal importance within the PR issue. Take the calamity of the Visa Lottery, by which 50,000 people get to immigrate to the US from any and all corners of the world. Like many of our greatest hobbles, this one was engineered by Ted Kennedy. And he did so after realizing that in the frame of the 1965 Immigration Act not enough Irish people would get to the US. So to get another couple hundred Irishmen in, he stuck us with 49,800 Uzbeks and Uighurs, every year. The Kennedys, who were intensely ethnocentric Irish Catholics, somehow managed to combine that with activism on behalf of Proposition Nation. If I were in the frame of mind like the JQ obsessives, I’d say that the Kennedys nursed an old grudge against America and Anglos in general for the discrimination their forebears suffered both in the old country and the new one. So they decided to punish us through PR.

Both the Jews and the Irish have some psychic wounds that manifest in different ways. But we should put them or anyone else on the spot not for what they feel toward the old country – that’s our staunch ally after all – but what they do and how they vote here, in the new one.

7. Meanwhile, other factors were at work. We'd posted a few essays on worrying conditions in Europe. The Baron went to a Conference in Brussels [enter Ignorant American who trashed conference & attendees] and the Baron began to network intensively with Europeans who were worried about their survival.

8. Out of order, time-wise, we'd also begun reading Fjordman waaay back, when he had a blog (it's still floating in cyberspace; check it out). His essays were valuable contributions to our efforts. Others began to contribute their ideas, too.

9. One of the people who helped organize those events in Europe became our informal 'advisor'. This person is now fully employed elsewhere and can't advise anymore, but we stay in touch. It was our advisor's idea that we MUST do quarterly fund-raisers to stay in the game. By then, the Baron was still working, but free-lancing. *That* dried up in the Big Hit in September 2008. It dried up the puddle for lots of programmers.

10. By then my health (fibromyalgia mostly) had deteriorated to the point that my fatigue and faulty proprioception was causing me to spend a lot of time in bed so as not to be a danger when out of it...the Baron was concerned about taking a job that required commuting. When you live in the middle of nowhere, you commute. I ASKED him to stay home if possible and live on our savings and whatever odds and ends of work came his way. Plus donations.

11. So that's what he did. Our public stance costs us money. Most recently, one fellow sent us a handsome sum only to notice belatedly (duh) that we supported Israel. I suggested to him that we return his money, though I wish now I'd charged him a nuisance fee. Others write to tell us they'd support us if...[fill in demand here].

IOW, Sunset, people vote with their money and some of them vote for Gates of Vienna and that allows us to stay in business.

When the donations stop, then we close the Gates and the Baron goes to work in the produce section of a food market near by.

That may well happen eventually. Times are hard and they may get harder. Meanwhile, we write what we want, when we want and for as long as people are willing to read it.

To suggest that we are "bought" by this arrangement is ludicruous. You obviously don't know us or understand our mission, which is two-fold: (1)to work against the incursions of Islam's sharia law into the West, and (2)to stand by Israel.

Saying these things out loud have cost us friendships, strained family relations, and reduced our income. But that's the price one PAYS for principles.

The Irish Revenge of the Kennedys, especially poor Ted, is not the the earliest cause of American lunacy.

Go back further, to the Quaker pacifists in Pennsylvania, to get a sense of where it started. Their pacifism carries with it the "underdog" virus. This opportunistic infection causes otherwise intelligent people to reflexively root for the loser, whoever the loser may be. For a long time, Israel was championed by the left...until it started looking so successful. That caused an automatic volte-face and we now have the spectacle of the PoorPalis who deserve only our love, affection and money for the cultural sink they've created and wallowed in for generations now.

Wanna get rich off the non-profits and govmint money? Be an underdog. Act like a loser. An aggrieved loser with a laundry list of hatreds...Jesse Jackson had the concession during his time. I don't pay attention to the players anymore since the field got so crowded with increasingly splintered gender identities & their accompanying obsessions.

Quoting me ("...the hyperbolic deployment of an inflammatory word like "treason" that botches good rhetoric..."), you asked:

Do you not think that some of your interlocutors, seeing that phrase, would wonder if you aren't more infected with PC/MC than you might have supposed?

The issue of treason is how many traitors we are implying exist throughout the West.

Treason necessarily entails knowingly trying to subvert one's own nation's government. In the context of the AIM, treason also entails knowingly being evil (= knowingly supporting the Muslim enemy against the West).

Thus, I have no problem calling, for example, Noam Chomsky a traitor. But, much as I would be sorely tempted to do so, that word strictly speaking does not apply to the majority of people who may be advocating and/or pursuing policies that effectively tend to enable such subversion, but who do not intend to be doing that, and actually have relatively sincere, decent and intelligent reasons for doing so. They are not willful traitors; nor are they evil. To write long complex intellectual essays that basically are saying that innumerable of our fellow Westerners throughout government offices, legal institutions, academe, school boards, journalism, publishing houses, the entertainment industry (not to mention other less "elitist" areas of our complex societies) are evil traitors (which, again = knowingly supporting our Muslim enemies against the West) is reckless, if not ridiculous.

I.e., a word like "treason" -- unqualified by words like "effective" or "virtual" or "infuriatingly unwitting" -- applies to a Tiny Minority of (Western) Extremists, tiny enough that their imputed power at manipulating the entire West becomes fantastic.

The problem as I see it are the millions of relatively sincere, decent and intelligent Westerners -- Left, Center, Right; Christian, Jew, Agnostic, Atheist, New Ager; Elite, Commoner, or one of the 1,001 other sociological categories that are routinely ignored by those fixated on "Elites" -- whose more or less thoughtful deference to, and acceptance of, the Weltanschauung of PC MC enables this virtual, but not willful, "treason".

Dymphna: Go back further, to the Quaker pacifists in Pennsylvania, to get a sense of where it started. Their pacifism carries with it the "underdog" virus. This opportunistic infection causes otherwise intelligent people to reflexively root for the loser, whoever the loser may be.

A decade or two ago I might have argued this point. After seeing Quakers line up to donate blood and supplies to the Palestinians, I was obliged to write them off as total lunatics. A group dedicated to peace assisting some of the most violent and genocidal people on earth set off the siren on my BS meter.

They'd be funny if they weren't so destructive.

Further agreed. The whole transgender crowd, as an extension of the homosexual community, are further deteriorating what is already a precarious situation.

You can only make yourself out to be so odd before you finally disqualify yourself from being actively represented. Surgically rearranging your genitalia and then expecting that the world should pad every sharp corner to suit your new found sensitivities is going a bit far.

Sunset Over Europe: Believe me, I could make a decent living working for the other team and make a lot more money than I have done over the past six years. The fact that you suggest that the Baron and Dymphna have been “bought” is downright insulting. Quite frankly, I think you owe both of them an apology. I know very few people who have taken so much crap for so little money over such a long period of time.

Fair enough, that was a very comprehensive and fair answer and of course I accept it (though I didn't actually say you had been bought) and please accept my condolences.

I guess I surmised my position before " I find it bizarre, to say the least, that this blog can be so frank about a large section of society but reduced to such overt fear and policing when dealing with just one section of society."

I have now read the last thread, and couldn't see one answer to straight question's. I really cannot understand why that would be, or why people would want to censor (and yes I do believe it is censorship) what seems to be a perfectly legitimate line of debate: We know they (Muslims) are here in the west, we know it is no good for us, but who or what is compelling this regardless?

That is the crucial question, to my mind. We can lament and moan that they are here and the damage they are causing, but come they do and in ever greater numbers.

I am genuinely astounded and at loss to explain why every western nation, with almost complete synchronicity should suddenly decide that it needed to replace its own peoples with others that are hostile and largely asocial and a threat to cohesion, and that the soon-to-be-replaced populace must fund their own destruction and be subjected to the most vicious oppression if they so much as dare to utter even the most innocuous words of dissent. Such things strike me as very alien indeed, especially given my age.

I am then, most interested to find out what lies behind it, whoever, or whatever it may be. I cannot believe that one group can be at root, rather a conglomeration of agendas that have found common cause.

But I find it dangerous in the extreme to say that certain lines of debate and enquiry in this endeavour are taboo or beyond the pale. Let the facts speak for themselves, deny only those who threaten, incite or cannot produce evidence.

Suppression only leads to anger and feelings of special treatment, and to the old belief that censorship must be done to cover the truth.

And that leads to dangerous climes for us all.

I have read what you have said, and I don't believe you have been bought. But I do suspect that you may have been influenced (not by money) to be overly cautious in areas that you find taboo; I could understand that in these very troubled and morally inverse times, I truly could, but please don't attack as pariahs those that seek to find the truth.

But I find it dangerous in the extreme to say that certain lines of debate and enquiry in this endeavour are taboo or beyond the pale. Let the facts speak for themselves, deny only those who threaten, incite or cannot produce evidence.

Suppression only leads to anger and feelings of special treatment, and to the old belief that censorship must be done to cover the truth.

Well, those might be good rules for your blog, should you have one. However, have been commenters long before we were bloggers, we decided from the git-go that commenters, just like the rest of the world, would have to live by the rules of the house.

Our house rules are: be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum.

And we are the final arbiters of what those words mean on this blog.

We are not suppressing others when we require that our house rules be adhered to by our commenters. If you think our rules are suppression, then the chasm dividing us is too large to shout across. Nor do I have the energy or inclination to try. After six years of such discussions, I know full well we won't have a dialogue that sheds light on anything.

Good luck with that idea, though. It's just one of the many fine notions which line the road of good intentions. That path dumps out, eventually, into the swamp of unintended consequences...

We live surrounded by woods. As managers of trees, we prune in order to prevent fires and other problems that arise from the idea that it is best to let things grow as they will.

In fact, the Baron and I take the same approach to flora and fauna as we do to comments: I believe in taking out what might be a problem down the road. He is more inclined to let things be. However, his "Letting Be" means that you and I are having this exchange.

I too find it quite astonishing that the entire Western civilisation can behave as it does nowadays. And I agree with your point that no one group can be held responsible for that phenomenon. However, I see that you then wonder why anyone who insists that one group - Jewish people - are controlling the world for their own ends, and they are the root cause of all the worlds troubles, is asked to exit stage left. But you have successfully addressed your own problem. You can't believe that nonsense, and no one else can either. Not unless you're ... well we all know who believes that kind of irrational claptrap.

Now for goodness sake can all you Jew haters STFU. You make me nauseous, the lot of you. Israel. Her enemies who want to destroy her - Muslim countries all of them. Who do you want to win? Pick a side. And stand by them.

Before you do that, consider this: What do you think the Ummah would do if they ever succeeded in destroying Israel? You think you've seen arrogant, insufferable, misogynistic, hate-filled Islamists before now? And that's just Islamist leaders and preachers. What would the millions of people who consider themselves part of the Ummah, the rank and file, be like if they ever achieved such a 'victory'? Energised! What would each of our countries be like? Think of how Christians are treated right now - today - in northern Nigeria and Pakistan, for example. You really want to go down that road? If any of you do, then I have no idea what you're doing on a site such as this. I really don't.

I apologise for the rant, Dymphna. It just came out; the Kalms obviously didn't work. Guess I'll have to move on to the diazepam next ...

And diazepam is gooood ... too good, I like those little fellas, I really do. 5mg, cup of tea, Jimmie Vaughan CD on ...

Ah well I can dream, sadly I have to get off to work in about an hour, midnight start tonight, which is just delightful. Midnight to 8am; everyone likes night shifts ... at least they like getting paid for them at the end of the month.

I understand its 'your' blog and you have the delete button, I personally just think that censorship always has a pretty face and sensible shoes.

It is of course, your choice and that is all there is to it.

But I was really more interested in what you thought about why / who / what is happening to all of our western nations that they all suddenly decided to replace, oppress and defame their own people.

Fjordman:

I didn't say either had been bought, so maybe you owe me an apology?

I don't know either of these guys personally and if you are not familiar with the concept and practice of what I raised, then you really ought to be. But I made an observation, not an accusation. Big difference.

In fact, I made a perfectly reasonable observation and if, as a result, you want to be offended on somebody else's behalf, and you think you have the right to then act as their poxy, so be it. There is one group who seems to thrive on being perpetually offended in this manner, as most on this blog would be aware. But do leave me out of it.

I will not recant, renounce, recall, or apologise for free speech made in good faith.

Ever.

Nick:

I didn't see any comment in the last thread make that claim. Granted there were dozens and I may have missed one, if that is the case, then please do provide it.

Sunset: Your other comment was more sensible. Nobody here is afraid of posting controversial things. I wouldn’t be here if I was. But the more controversial the subjects become, the more tact is required to raise them. It’s difficult to get people to listen. Now that you are asking: No, I do not think this is coincidental. After having studied this for years, the only possible conclusion I can reach is that the governments all over the Western world are waging a concerted campaign to actively break down and displace the white majority population in favor of a new, global and presumably authoritarian world order. People from the Labour Party in Britain even admitted this publicly, so it’s not a “conspiracy theory.”

I also read a few days ago people from the Council of Europe saying in full seriousness that Europe needs one hundred million – that’s 100,000,000 – more immigrants, most of whom will be Africans and Muslims, over the coming decades. At a time when native Europeans are already being murdered and gang raped in their own cities, I strongly suspect that such plans by many Europeans will be viewed as nothing less than a declaration of war against the native peoples of an entire continent. The dangerous part is that I suspect this to be partly correct.

The problem is when you get all the weirdoes who see a Jew under every bed, which will destroy any intelligent discussion of these very difficult subjects. If you look at the European Union, for instance, the Jewish contribution to creating the EUSSR was relatively minor. That doesn’t make the problem any less, though. The white elites are generally hostile to common whites and don’t give a damn about our well-being. Do you think George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Angela Merkel or Sarkozy care about white schoolchildren? They don’t, any more than Tony Blair did, and people sense now this. The anger grows daily. The democratic system has so far proved unable to cope with this and could totally collapse unless this situation changes.

Coupled with the stupidity of the Proposition Nation concept, the inability to deal with genetic differences between people, the active aid Western elites give to our Islamic enemies and a possible impending collapse of the world economy, I can see all the ingredients in place for a new world war within the coming generation. These are the stakes we are dealing with here. And precisely because the stakes are so high, we need to be smart and careful in how we talk about these issues. Given the fact that my previous essay has now generated hundreds of comments in a few days, most of which were more or less irrelevant to the issue at hand, I have to wonder whether I should perhaps close comments for a few of my upcoming essays.

It is pretty clear that if you had a clear-cut example of an American conservative properly opposed to the idea of the Proposition Nation, then you would have mentioned him.

But sure, I'll give you some examples of whom I reject, together with motivations. I reject Dennis Mangan for his haywire PC spasms and hysterical PC vomiting in the face of the idea going back to a traditional (pre-Enlightenment) concept of citizenship. His mentally confused and emotionally disturbed equating of "not having citizenship" with "being deported en masse" reveals that he's got a personality that rejects age-old well-tested traditional concepts at face value -- like progressivist teflon. Instead comes the sort of Leftist hysteric reaction together with lies and a shower of PC Tourettes. Such a well known pattern. Obviously someone who's got his emotions and identity invested in the wrong place, and cannot be trusted.

Auster is another example. Quite as Mangan he talks a lot about nationalism and support for Europe etc. But when presented to the idea of a Europe without Christianity, to Auster that is Nazism, Nazism, Nazism! Evil, evil, evil! So clearly its not the ethicity he's supporting by an idea (Christianity). Without Christianity he'd hate Europe more then Islam, and be prepared to fight it to the death. Also here we get the usual sort of Leftist hysteric reaction together with lies and a shower of PC Tourettes.

These are examples of the ones I reject. And obviously they are both fake. I highlight them here since I picked them during the years since they seemed to look at the issues more deeply than talking heads such as Mark Steyn, David Horowitz, Derbyshire, etc. I was fooled by them for a while, but eventually they showed their true side.

If you look at the European Union, for instance, the Jewish contribution to creating the EUSSR was relatively minor.

It's true. At the same time, I think it's clear that the model for the EU (a big transcontinental Propositional Creation) is the United States of America. Actually, the US, USSR and the EU are all facets of the same Enlightenment project - the "all men were created equal" proposition nation.

That's why I'm wondering: when talking about the proposition nation, is it possible to avoid discussing the results, the outcome, the bitter fruits of such a project? Like outgroups, minorities, diverging interests, conflicting goals, group competition? Or PCism, hate crimes, intellectual terror? And, besides well-known facts such as the dysfunctional nature of Black communities everywhere - at least compared to Western societies, the evil of Sharia, Hispanic tribalism and activism, etc. - how can one avoid mentioning, for example, the Jewish activism behind the hate-crimes legislation, one of the reasons we are afraid to speak our mind in public, instead of blogs and forums?

How can one point to the Proposition Nation as the source of the Western decline, without mentioning the results - "this is how it ends, never try this again?".

Fjordman,Your initial essay was excellent, and so was that comment. Thanks for all your work. I remember reading those articles you linked to in your original essay, about the British government deliberately embarking on a social engineering experiment without saying a damn thing to the people who had unknowningly voted them into power. And though: why isn't this front page news in every paper in the country? Why aren't these people held accountable for this? Asked to explain what the hell they were up to? I think there is indeed a fundamental disconnect between people in any kind of power today in the UK, and I refer here to anyone working for the state in any kind of administrative (i.e. they dont' actually have to do any hands-on work) capacity, and working class British citizens.

I have lost count of the number of people I have encountered in the last few years who work for the state in some way, and who don't care about anyting. No sense of right and wrong, no desire to earn their wages by you know ... doing their job. No interest in anything except keeping their bums on the seat in their office at all costs, and the rest of the world can go hang! Really, I've seen this phenomenon time and again in recent years. And the further up the 'chain of command' you go, the worse it gets. As for actual politicians, well they're beneath contempt. Care about working class people, and their kids? That's a laugh. They're out for number one, and that's it.

I think that part of the problem may be that this whole project is like a huge boulder rolling downhill. It gathers momentum and no one person can stop it. And everyone else has got so much invested in that boulder that they don't want anyone to say that it's going to crush everything in its path, and eventually hit bottom. So in order to keep your seat on that nice warm chair in your office, you can't make waves. No one can. Or you're out.

Eventually even if someone did at one time think about what was happening, and I doubt that many of these people are even close to being intelligent enough to do that, they just stopped. It's easier that way. And these people always, always take the easiest road. (Going back again to their reluctance to actually work for a living.)

Maybe. I'm just thinking aloud here.

Right got to go, I'm leaving in exactly 24 minutes so it's time to get my act together ..

In respect of Fjordman's excellent article, let's bring with us the question if there is any American conservative properly opposed to the idea of the Proposition Nation. I'm looking for someone that does not think it was an obvious no-brainer to give blacks citizenship in 1865. As well as someone that is not displaying the usual register of PC reflexes, which I have found in every other American conservative (except for here at GoV, of course :-)

We do have them in Europe. But I have sort of given up on America. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

Folks, bring this question with you to see if you find an answer. It's at the core of the discussion initiated by Fjordman here.

@Fjordman, blog comments go off-topic all the time, everywhere, probably way more than they stay focused on the issue at hand. Such is life. As a writer, you should be happy that so many people read your article and took the time to comment on it. Also, many many readers, myself included, complimented you on such a fine essay. Hopefully you will continue to leave the comments section open on your posts in the future.

As for the commenters who derailed the discussion from the PN to the JQ....I guess I'm as guilty as anyone else. Mea culpa. But in my defence, I did comment about the PN in a previous post by you, saying that France had foisted its PN ethos on a prostrate Italy and West Germany when the EEC was created in the 1950s, and the best way forward for Europe now was to strengthen Germany vis-a-vis France by continuing to expand the EU and the eurozone eastward, thereby weakening France's PN proselytizing. The ultimate goal would be to bring about a new understanding of Europe as an "ethnocontinent", the common homeland of white Christian peoples. I don't really have anything else to add to that right now.

Otherwise, I thought it was a pretty good comment thread. And judging by the fact that it garnered more comments than 99% of the posts here at GoV, so did a lot of other readers. If the Baron didn't shut it down, it would probably have 500+ comments by now!

Quote:A decade or two ago I might have argued this point. After seeing Quakers line up to donate blood and supplies to the Palestinians, I was obliged to write them off as total lunatics. A group dedicated to peace assisting some of the most violent and genocidal people on earth set off the siren on my BS meter.end

Never has there been a more garish expression of hypocrisy.And the "underdog virus" Dymphna describes, with its attendant self-deceptions and dogmatism, absolutely rules in the overwhelming majority of academic environs.This nation has created a false morality and decided that empiricism is no longer a valid perspective from which to form judgment.If I favor the "Serbia Standard", I do so on the basis of empirical evidence and inductive reasoning.But say "inductive-based" or "empirically-derived" perspective to most of the academics I know, and they'll act as if the speaker doesn't exist!They really believe that to begin the intellectual endeavor with the "underdog virus" as their deductive underpinning guarantees valid, "non-biased" results.I know.Because when I talk about the inductive basis of my work, and my trust of empiricism and long-term observation, most other academics, students and professors alike, just get this glaze over their eyes that's just sickening. I don't critique Islam from a deductive perspective that says I'm superior.I critique Islam based on the Western historical experience of Islam.And no amount of "underdog virus" is going to change the content of that ugly, ugly history. The more events and patterns of thinking and action I encounter from the historical Muslim world, the more I see the parallels with the present, the more repulsive I find Islamic culture.And as a self-honest Christian, I have to say that Islam is profane, Allah is an "elemental spirit of the world" and Mohammed definitely is a false prophet.Who am I to judge?Christian doctrine demands that I judge!

I didn't say I intended to become less controversial. On the contrary. But if this essay triggered so much noise, I have to seriously consider whether it is helpful. Comments are only good if they enhance the quality of the posts. The last 300 comments, on balance, did not do so. I’m sorry, but that’s my conclusion. Perhaps very sensitive issues should run without comments. I haven't decided yet, will think about it.

In respect of Fjordman's excellent article, let's bring with us the question if there is any American conservative properly opposed to the idea of the Proposition Nation. I'm looking for someone that does not think it was an obvious no-brainer to give blacks citizenship in 1865.

I can't find any, but then, how many American great thinkers you know, on a par with, for example, Joseph de Maistre or Burke - or Schopenhauer or Nietzsche?As Toqueville noticed, America means the middle class, conformism or the triumph of the average. No aristocratic tradition - no great thinkers, including conservatives or ideological "trouble makers".

You can find much more material regarding the Serbs at Julia Gorin's blog. She is Jewish and fully understands that we are all in the same boat when it comes to the jihad.

I also am the founder and primary admin of a counterjihad blog, namely 1389 Blog. It covers the counterjihad in general, particularly free speech for the counterjihad, as well as persecution of Christians, Orthodox Christianity, and various aspects of the North American political scene as it pertains to foreign policy.

Also, you might like to visit 2.0: The Blogmocracy - it's another conservative team blog/forum that staunchly supports the Serbs and the Jews. Subject matter primarily has to do with US politics in general, including the counterjihad. If you want to comment, you will need to register, but registration is open and takes just a few minutes.

You can find much more material regarding the Serbs at Julia Gorin's blog. She is Jewish and fully understands that we are all in the same boat when it comes to the jihad.

I also am the founder and primary admin of a counterjihad blog, namely 1389 Blog. It covers the counterjihad in general, particularly free speech for the counterjihad, as well as persecution of Christians, Orthodox Christianity, and various aspects of the North American political scene as it pertains to foreign policy.

Also, you might like to visit 2.0: The Blogmocracy - it's another conservative team blog/forum that staunchly supports the Serbs and the Jews. Subject matter primarily has to do with US politics in general, including the counterjihad. If you want to comment, you will need to register, but registration is open and takes just a few minutes.

No aristocratic tradition - no great thinkers, including conservatives or ideological "trouble makers".

What about George Fitzhugh? His thoughtful conservatism led him to reject the Constitution.

Quote:

"Our Revolution, so wise in its conception and so glorious in its execution, was the mere assertion by adults of the rights of adults, and had nothing more to do with philosophy than the weaning of a calf. It was the act of a people seeking national independence, not the Utopian scheme of speculative philosophers, seeking to establish human equality and social perfection.

But the philosophers seized upon it, as they had upon the Reformation, and made it the unwilling and unnatural parent of the largest and most hideous brood of ills that had ever appeared at one birth, since the opening of the box of Pandora. Bills of Rights, Acts of Religious Freedom and Constitutions, besprinkled with doctrines directly at war with all stable government, seem to be the basis on which our institutions rest. But only seem to be; for, in truth, our laws and government are either old Anglo-Saxon prescriptive arrange-ments, or else the gradual accretions of time, circumstance and necessity. Throw our paper platforms, preambles and resolutions, guaran-ties and constitutions, into the fire, and we should be none the worse off, provided we retained our institutions - and the necessities that begat, and have, so far, continued them."

That said, as a person who has always had a horror of treason, I am faced with a conundrum:

Is it possible to honorably serve a corrupt master?

How do you go about being a loyal American when your ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is selling out your country to its avowed enemies? In other words, when THEY are the traitors, by the definition in the US Constitution?

If things don't change VERY soon, all I can come up with is this:

1) Promote secession by peaceful means (such as by educating the public until enough States want to take that route that we can get a Constitutional amendment to dissolve the Leviathan) - yeah, this is a long shot...

2) Saying to heck with it and emigrating.

I may end up starting over in some foreign country at the age of 60 or so, with very little in my pockets.